Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Devolution

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received to date urging a referendum on the devolution issue; and what reply he has given.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I have received 80 letters calling for a referendum, out of a total of about 1,400 letters on the subject of devolution. I have made clear that the Government have no plans to hold one.

Mr. Roberts: Irrespective of those figures—I must say that I am surprised by them—is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the demand for a referendum far exceeds the demand for

devolution, which is now understood in Wales to be a method of deflecting criticism away from Westminster and Whitehall to Cardiff? Is the Secretary of State aware that the demand for a referendum is a polite Welsh way of saying "No" to the proposals?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that Welsh hon. Members will set an example for the rest of the week by asking only one supplementary question.

Mr. Morris: I am aware that a number of voices have been raised in support of the idea of a referendum, but I am far from sure where the hon. Gentleman stands on that subject.

Mr. Fred Evans: To give a quick and accurate resumé of those figures, is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware that in Wales there are about 29 district councils and five out of seven county councils which wish to have a referendum? Will the Secretary of State accept that it appears from research in my constituency that 13 constituency Labour Parties also want a referendum and that a large number have not yet committed themselves? Does he not agree that this augurs well for a devolution referendum?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the voices that have been raised in support of that idea, but my hon. Friend would be the first to say that other voices have been raised against the idea, including that of the Welsh TUG. I am sure that the


arguments will be fully discussed at the Welsh party conference, as they were last year, when the suggestion was rejected.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: If there were a referendum, the line-up would be fascinating. Plaid Cymru welcomes the idea of a referendum, on condition that it would be fair and constructive, with all the options, including those offered by the unions, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Party and the Republicans.

Mr. Morris: There are a whole variety of questions, such as separatism—which I am confident will be rejected in Wales—federalism, the Government's solution, the reform of local government, and which parts of Wales should remain within the devolved structure. Some hon. Members who are anxious that there should be no diminution in the powers of Members of Parliament will be conscious that hon. Members should take a decision supported by the manifesto which was adopted at the last General Election.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree mat it would be a good idea to cool the hysteria on the subject? The arguments advanced by the principal protagonists on the one side are nothing like as one-sided as is made out. On Friday night my constituency Labour Party decided, in my absence, to support the White Paper and oppose a referendum.

Mr. Morris: I am pleased to hear the news. I am sure that if my hon. Friend had been there, the decision would have been the same.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When are we to emerge from this Celtic twilight?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help hon. Members until tomorrow, when special efforts will be made to deal with the lighting defects.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not appropriate for English Members to be called on this subject?

Mr. Speaker: It is for Mr. Speaker to decide whom he calls on different Questions.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what repre-

sentations he has received on devolution from the Welsh Council.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): The Welsh Council is one of the bodies invited to submit comments to the Welsh Office on the White Paper, Cmnd. 6348. I understand the Council has been considering its response, and we await its comments with interest.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Press report that the Welsh Council has reached a consensus in favour of the policy in the Government's White Paper? Does the fact that this rather conservative body has reached that conclusion not suggest that the White Paper does not go far enough and that the future Assembly should at least have control of the Welsh Development Agency?

Mr. Alec Jones: I should not be prepared at this juncture to describe the Welsh Council as conservative, liberal, Labour or anything else and I am not prepared to respond to Press reports. If the Welsh Council is a responsible body, as I believe it to be, it is right and proper that the Government should react to its reasoned response after it has made that response known to the Government.

Sir Raymond Gower: Has the hon. Gentleman received, in addition, representations from most of the local authorities in Wales and from bodies like the CBI and the Welsh TUC?

Mr. Alec Jones: As the Secretary of State said, we have received a considerable number of responses from bodies. The Welsh TUC and the CBI have responded. The Welsh Council was one of the 55 bodies which were specifically asked for their comments on this document, but that does not debar any individual from making comments and suggestions to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that it is far more appropriate to give weight to the fact that the greatest number of Labour Parties in Wales which have declared themselves are in favour of a referendum on this matter than to the opinion of a body of placemen, however distinguished, who I understand came down against a referendum


by only one vote? In view of the present climate of public expenditure cuts, can my hon. Friend now seriously maintain that the devolution proposals are a priority of this Government?

Mr. Alec Jones: My hon. Friend must appreciate that if we are to give the fullest consideration to all the various viewpoints expressed to the Government on this and any other subject, it is right to wait for those responses. But it is equally important to give due weight to every point of view in Wales, whether it comes from a large body or a small one.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Has the Minister received any representations from the Farmers' Union of Wales or the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales? If so, are they both in favour of devolution?

Mr. Alec Jones: We have certainly received views from the National Farmers" Union. Perhaps the best thing that I can do is to write to the hon. Gentleman setting out the views that have been expressed to us.

Mr. Abse: Does not my hon. Friend think it necessary, apart from the representations which are being made, that the Government should be giving further consideration, in view of the severe and heavy cuts which will fall on Wales—inevitable and no doubt necessary—to some totally new policy, since the £15 million or more per year which, according to the Government, devolution is likely to cost, could be far better spent on augmenting funds for Wales, which faces such severe cuts under the new White Paper?

Mr. Alec Jones: My hon. Friend must appreciate that any costs of establishing a devolved Assembly in Wales are unlikely to be met in the immediate future. If he considers the White Paper on Public Expenditure he will see that devolution costs are part of the costs listed as coming from the Contingency Fund and not from any other sources in Wales.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend not accept that any devolution to Wales, involving a further unnecessary and expensive tier of government, is an extravagance that this country and Wales can well do without? When can we stop this nonsense?

Mr. Alec Jones: We are always pleased to receive comments from hon. Members throughout the United Kingdom on our proposals. What we are proposing is not an extra tier of government——

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Of course it is.

Mr. Alec Jones: My hon. Friend knows that we had a four-day debate in which this subject was raised. I am sure that when the Bill is published he will be able to express his view on this and any other subject.

Development Corporation for Wales (Finance)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what financial aid he has made to the Welsh Development Corporation during the present year; and what is the planned level of aid for the year 1976–77.

Mr. John Morris: Provision has been made for the payment of £67,500 to the Development Corporation for Wales in 1975–76. It will be for the Welsh Development Agency, in consultation with my Department, to determine the level of grant aid for 1976–77.

Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) already has a grant going through to 1977 at a level double that which the Development Corporation for Wales has had for the year to which he referred? Is he aware that, as a result, with the two bodies competing in exactly the same sphere of attracting industry, the Scottish Council has a decided advantage? Will he press the Welsh Development Agency to ensure that the funds available to the Development Corporation for Wales are the same as those available in Scotland?

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman is relying, as he seems to be, on simple arithmetic, perhaps I should point out to him that the population of Scotland is different from that of Wales. I am confident that he will know that 1976–77 is the last of the three years for which the grants have been agreed. The matter is now in the court of the Welsh Development Agency, which I am sure will do its best, within its resources, to meet the needs of Wales.

Public Administration (Staff)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish statistics showing the increase or decrease in the number of administrative and clerical jobs in the public sector in Wales during the past 12 months.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): The Department of Employment provisionally estimates that the number in the public administration category, which covers a large proportion of administrative and clerical employees in central and local government, increased by 5,100 in Wales between September 1974 and September 1975.

Sir A. Meyer: Subject to the overriding need to reduce and keep down the number employed by the Government, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will continue to press for the implementation of proposals to transfer some administrative jobs—not only in the Civil Service but also in the grossly swollen headquarters staff of public corporations such as the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board—from London to Wales, particularly North Wales, where such jobs are badly needed?

Mr. Barry Jones: I am receptive to a plea for North Wales. I know, from conditions locally, that there may be a point in what the hon. Gentleman says, but Wales overall has more than its fair share of dispersed jobs. On the hon. Gentleman's first question, central Government staffing is currently under close scrutiny and local government staffing is being monitored through the joint staff watch.

Welsh Development Agency (Guidelines)

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has yet completed his consultations with the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh TUC and the Welsh Council of the CBI about guidelines for the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir.

Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain his refusal to allow hon. Members to see the draft guidelines? Is it not about time that

open government added discussion in this place to secret negotiations with the TUC and CBI?

Mr. Morris: I am not sure what refusal the hon. Gentleman has in mind. What we are doing is consulting those who will be guided by the guidelines. Following those consultations, draft guidelines will be issued, with or without any amendments that may be necessary. At that stage, well before any decision about finalising the guidelines, there will be ample opportunity for anyone, including in particular hon. Members, to comment, before the guidelines are finalised. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that those who are to be guided should be the first to be consulted in the formative stage.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we welcome the fact that he has now given an answer which is somewhat different from the Written Answer in which he said that the guidelines would not be available to hon. Members until they were in their final form? If he is now saying that this House will be consulted on the guidelines, I welcome that fact.

Mr. Morris: What I am saying is that we are now in the early formative stages of consultation to ensure that the views of those who will be guided by the guidelines are taken into account. Obviously, before the final guidelines are set out, there will be an opportunity for anyone, including any hon. Member, to consult further if he wishes. I see no difficulties there.

Mr. Wigley: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that in Committee on the Bill there was detailed discussion of a number of controversial points that will certainly be covered by the guidelines? In that case, will he accept that there should be consultation also with Welsh local authorities, who have a deep interest in the matter, and with other bodies, such as the Development Corporation—and, indeed, everyone with a direct interest—before the final draft is submitted to the House?

Mr. Morris: When the draft guidelines are published there will be ample opportunity for anyone to comment. I


should have thought that that was taken as read. I have read this morning the Official Report of the Committee debates and the points made by the Under-Secretary. I am confident that I am carrying out to the full what he said in Committee. I cannot see any difficulty.

Newport

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay an official visit to Newport.

Mr. John Morris: I did so on 16th January and before that on 28th November last.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the concern in Newport at the prejudice shown in favour of Cardiff, particularly in relation to the proposal for the dispersal of Ministry of Defence personnel and also in relation to development area status? Is it considered that only Cardiff has a problem or is the Welsh Office, like the Western Mail, experiencing difficulty in seeing over the top of Rhymney Hill?

Mr. Morris: Having been in Newport on three or four occasions during the past six or seven months, in company with my hon. Friend, I am aware, I hope, of many of the problems of Newport and Gwent as a whole. With regard to the dispersal of Ministry of Defence staff, this subject will be raised in the debate tonight and my hon. Friend's comments will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Fred Evans: Will my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) accept that as St. Mellons is only eight miles away from Newport, and the Rhymney Valley and other valleys adjacent to Cardiff are a little further, the dispersal of jobs to St. Mellons is just as likely—indeed, more likely—to benefit the people of the valley that I am talking about as it would if they were dispersed to Newport itself?

Mr. Morris: I recognise that my hon. Friends are very stout fighters for their constituencies. All I would say is that my anxiety is to get new jobs to whatever part of Wales we can get them. I would add that eight miles is perhaps an exaggeration of the distance between the two sites. It is four miles.

Public Transport (Mid-Wales)

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the state of public transport in Mid-Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Barry Jones: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him on 19th January and 5th February.—[Vol. 903, c. 898–900; Vol. 904, c. 728.]

Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of those answers. I am sure that he is aware that many villages in Mid-Wales are without any means of transport whatsoever. Is he aware that many of my constituents are worried about the future of the Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury line? May we have an assurance that the work carried out on the line between Aberystwyth and Machynlleth is permanent and not temporary?

Mr. Barry Jones: The repair to storm damage to the Aberystwyth railway line is to go ahead. I understand that the work that is in hand will cost £250,000, and should be completed by Easter. That sum of £250,000 will be spent on permanent work.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as long as the Government cling to their low investment programme in railways there will be a very heavy shadow over the Welsh lines, and the central Welsh lines in particular, whatever the Secretary of State for the Environment says? Will he and his right hon. Friend do their utmost to save these lines if the threat should come?

Mr. Barry Jones: We are well aware of the contribution of the railways in Wales. The changes in the frequency and quality of the rail service are entirely a matter for the management of British Rail. Nevertheless, representations by anyone who is affected should be made to the TUCC.

Sir A. Meyer: In view of the increasingly gloomy outlook for the subsidised bus services in the countryside, will the Minister look sympathetically again at flexible ideas for small mini-buses, shared buses with the Post Office, and so on, which were examined closely by the last Conservative Government?

Mr. Barry Jones: The Government have decided to promote a series of experimental projects to test measures for improving accessibility and for developing a cheaper and more flexible system to help the more remote areas, and one of those projects will be in Wales.

Opencast Coal Mining

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the National Coal Board on the future of opencast mining in Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: None, Sir. Authorisation for opencast coal mining is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but my right hon. and learned Friend is consulted by him on all applications in Wales because of his environmental responsibilities.

Mr. Abse: With the National Coal Board's hungry eyes upon the shallow coal in South Wales, is there not an urgent need for the Minister to make clear that we are not prepared to accept a second violation of our valleys, which are still only recovering from the assaults of the last Industrial Revolution? Is not my hon. Friend aware that at Abersychan the Coal Board is plotting to create, over a period of many unendurable years for my constituents, one of the largest holes and highest tips in Wales, which will make a mockery of all the splended land reclamation schemes already in existence and all the replanning that has taken place for improved housing and schools which are now coming to that area?

Mr. Alec Jones: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that if the Coal Board does make a formal application for authorisation to work on the site, which is causing such serious concern, there will be an opportunity for objections to be made, and if objections are made to the local planning authority, as I suspect the question intimates, an inquiry will be held. At that time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be obliged to take into account all the circumstances that my hon. Friend has so vividly painted.

Public Expenditure

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent and in what areas reductions in Government

expenditure are planned for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what effects he anticipates will result in Wales from the Government's announced restraint in public expenditure.

Mr. John Morris: The detailed analysis of future public expenditure in Wales is contained in Tables 3–3 and 3–4 of Cmnd. 6393. We have been able to give high priority to industrial regeneration, to completing the M4, and to maintaining standards in the Health Service.

Sir Raymond Gower: While I applaud and support the decision of the Government in the White Paper to sustain the building of new houses, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the failure to provide grants for the maintenance or improvement of the older dwellings means that thousands of houses are now deteriorating and may be beyond repair? Does this not create a vast new problem, which could be prevented?

Mr. Morris: I presume that the hon. Gentleman has followed the Chancellor's recent announcement of the grant of an additional £4 million to Wales to alleviate unemployment, which I shall be spending in order to improve housing stock in Wales. The local authorities will be told shortly how the extra money is to be disbursed.

Mr. Grist: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how many civil servants in the Defence Department he thinks will go to Cardiff, in view of the announced cutback? Will he say how many pit closures he expects in Wales, in view of the injunction on the National Coal Board to operate commercially? Does he agree with the prediction in the White Paper about the level of unemployment in the next two years?

Mr. Morris: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, about 5,000 staff will go to Cardiff, subject to the outcome of the defence review which may have the effect of reducing the number. The coal industry in Wales has received a measure of confidence in recent years. There has been increased recruitment, and substantial investment.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that


it will be a question of where the staff are prepared to go? Is he aware that they have indicated that St. Mellons, to say the least, is not popular with them, but that they would be prepared to go to Tredegar Park?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his usual skill, will make these points to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence in tonight's debate.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is not the central fact about the Government's policy that cuts in new programmes are less than the interest on the National Debt, which will amount to 8½ times the Welsh Office budget for 1978–79? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the Welsh share of the total United Kingdom expenditure on housing is planned to fall each year up to 1978–79, when it will be 3·4 per cent. compared with 4·6 per cent. last year?

Mr. Morris: After the appalling house building record of the party that the hon. Gentleman supports, when public house building was a disgrace——

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Answer!

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member must not get angry. He must contain himself. He is behaving in a ridiculous fashion. All the figures for the future are much higher than those for house building in the last year of the Conservative Government. I am proud of the number of houses built in Wales last year.

Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the vast majority of people in Wales are appalled at the Government's priorities in these matters—axing house building while expenditure on the MRCA is continuing? Is it not time that the Government got their social priorities correct?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the White Paper. He has not seen the forecast for the year ahead. He does not know that in the last year in the public sector in Wales we built 142 per cent. more houses than were built in the last year of the Conservative Government.

Council House Building

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with progress in public sector house building in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alec Jones: The public sector figure of 8,336 dwellings completed in 1975 represents a substantial improvement on the 1974 miserable figure of 3,674. The local authority contribution of 7,332 houses is their best performance since 1968 and is 140 per cent. up on 1974. This is particularly gratifying in view of the appalling record of house building that we inherited just two years ago, and we are grateful to all concerned.

Mr. Hughes: In these admittedly difficult economic times, does my hon. Friend agree that the people of Wales will welcome the figures he has just given? Does he agree that nothing will do more to assist in alleviating the unemployment problem than expansion in the construction industry? Can he indicate how these figures apply in the Anglesey and Gwynedd areas, where unemployment is unacceptably high?

Mr. Alec Jones: These are not just figures; they represent homes for people who would otherwise not have them. I know the interest that my right hon. Friend has taken in the island of Anglesey and I am sure that he will be pleased to know that in 1974 the local authority on Anglesey built 67 houses, while in 1975 it built 122—nearly double the previous year's figures. I am sure that he will be equally pleased to hear that the schemes in prospect suggest good news for the coming year.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the 9,471 improvement grants given last year represent only about one-third of the total in 1973 and 1972? In view of the reply given by the Secretary of State to the last Question, may we look forward to a return to the 1972 and 1973 figures?

Mr. Alec Jones: I am certainly aware of the lower take-up of improvement grants. I am surprised that the hon. Member has such a short memory, though I always appreciated that he had


a convenient one. The decision to reduce improvement grants from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. was made by his Government before they left office. We increased that figure for a certain number of people for an extended period.

Pontygwindy Housing Association

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will withdraw his departmental opposition to a meeting between the Rhymney Valley District Council, the Pontygwindy Housing Association and the Housing Corporation aimed at amicably resolving the financial situation of the Pontygwindy Housing Association and avoiding a High Court Action.

Mr. Alec Jones: The Department has at no time expressed any opposition to a meeting between the Rhymney Valley District Council, the Pontygwindy Housing Association and the Housing Corporation.

Mr. Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have with me a letter from the Housing Corporation to the Rhymney Valley District Council which says:
I have just heard from the Welsh Office by telephone"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid it is not customary to quote from documents during Question Time. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) should be seeking information rather than imparting it.

Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is evidence from the Housing Corporation that the Welsh Office has put obstacles in the way of the parties to this complex dispute meeting together and that I am prepared to furnish him with that evidence? Does he agree that it is sad when people who are engaged in an argument are told by civil servants in the Welsh Office that they must continue arguing, rather than settle the matter? Is he aware that they have been ordered to go on quarrelling when an amicable settlement would have been possible? Is he further aware that this is not now possible, because the hearing in the High Court starts tomorrow morning?

Mr. Alec Jones: I should be most grateful for a sight of the letter from

which my hon. Friend sought to quote. It would not be right for my Department to participate in any such meetings at present, because as long as the matter is before the High Court it is sub judice. As for the difficulties in this matter over the years, the primary responsibility for overseeing the affairs of the Housing Association lies with the Housing Corporation.

Unemployment

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what effect recent Government measures introduced to alleviate unemployment are having in Wales.

Mr. John Morris: Wales has already obtained substantial benefits from the series of measures announced since April 1975. One hundred and eighty-four projects have been recommended under the Job Creation Scheme, providing a total of 1,885 jobs; the Temporary Employment Subsidy Scheme has saved 1,414 jobs to date; 1,670 school leavers have been taken on by firms benefiting under the Recruitment Subsidy Scheme; £3¼ million has been allocated for advance factory building, and an additional £6½ million has been made available for housing improvements.

Mr. Anderson: Encouraging as those figures are, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us would wish they were geared more to the specific regional problems within Wales? Can he anticipate what effect the measures announced the week before last are likely to have in the Principality?

Mr. Morris: Two parts of these proposals are of particular importance to Wales. First, the extension of the temporary employment subsidy to include redundancies of 10 or more workers and its extension from six months to 12 months will be of particular significance in Wales, because we have a large proportion of small industrial concerns. Secondly, the £4 million help given to the construction industry—making a total of £6½ million since April 1975—will be of particular value to the housing industry and to the construction industry generally.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the present extraordinarily high level of


unemployment in Wales is partly due to the fact that for a long time between the last two General Elections his Government allowed inflation to run almost unhindered?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a ridiculous proposition, which has been paraded in this House time and again. We are anxious to bring down the unacceptably high level of unemployment at the earliest possible opportunity, and the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go some way towards dealing with the situation.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government's additional provision of training and retraining in Wales is also very important in this context? Does he hold out any hope of additional training facilities in Gwynedd, where young people have to travel very long distances to obtain adequate training?

Mr. Morris: Training is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and I know that he is aware of the problems. I met the Confederation of Engineering Workers for the whole of North Wales during the recess and listened to their observations. I have ensured that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the needs of North Wales as a whole, and Gwynedd in particular.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one of the most profound causes of unemployment in Wales is heavy company taxation? Will he use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only in this direction but also to reduce the 25 per cent. rate of VAT, which is hitting employment in the domestic electrical appliances industry?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Improvement Grants (South Glamorgan)

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many improvement grants were made for homes in South Glamorgan in 1975.

Mr. Alec Jones: Four hundred and twenty-one in Cardiff and 188 in the Vale of Glamorgan, making 609 in South Glamorgan. This is a provisional figure and includes improvements to both private and local authority dwellings.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the high rateable values in South Glamorgan, does the Minister consider that improvement grants will cease to be an effective instrument of housing policy?

Mr. Alec Jones: The present rateable value limit of £175 per annum is proving to be very favourable to the people of Wales. Only 10 per cent. of the housing stock of the Principality is outside the limit. The limit does not apply to properties which are converted to letting. Our experience shows that rateable values are not the limiting factor suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Grist: In view of the age of so much of the housing in Wales, does the Minister accept that a cutback in improvement grants as projected in the White Paper will mean that more houses will become derelict than the number built, about which the Department boasts?

Mr. Alec Jones: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would choose his words with more care. There has been no restriction in the provision of improvement grants by local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Manpower

Mr. Pattie: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Civil Service unions about possible reductions in the size of the Civil Service.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on Civil Service manpower cuts.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I made a comprehensive statement in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) during the Adjournment debate on 5th February. My right hon. and noble Friend and I saw members of the National Staff Side on


9th February, and the general import of what we then said followed the remarks that I made during that Adjournment debate.
Since then, the Public Expenditure White Paper has been published. This shows the extent of the proposed reductions, expressed in financial terms.
I have, at this stage, nothing further to add.

Mr. Pattie: Now that the White Paper on Public Expenditure has been published, presumably the Minister can deal with actual figures. Does he agree that the forecast indicates a reduction of 30,000 civil servants by the start of 1978? Can he reconcile that forecast with the news that his Department is contemplating an increase in the number of civil servants in the immediate future?

Mr. Morris: Yes, Sir. The White Paper on Public Expenditure indicated that the Government proposed a cut of £140 million in Civil Service manpower levels and staffing, which can be interpreted in a variety of ways. As I said in the recent Adjournment debate, at this stage we are not embarked on immediate cuts in the Civil Service. For some time yet the number of civil servants is likely to increase. Against the background of £140 million, we are embarked on a thorough review of all aspects of work in the Civil Service.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Has my right hon. Friend seen the apparently authoritative and full report in The Times this morning about manpower cuts in the Civil Service? Is he aware that reports of this sort cause considerable concern amongst civil servants, and will he ensure that information of this kind is brought properly to the House or the Whitley Council?

Mr. Morris: I share the anxieties of my hon. Friend in this regard. Anxiety amongst civil servants arises from certain Press reports that have appeared recently. I emphasise that at present we are not embarked on any arbitrary cuts. The White Paper on Public Expenditure referred to the year 1977–78.

Mr. Rost: As 8,000 civil servants are being employed at the new computerised Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre

at Swansea, will 8,000 civil servants employed in local county motor tax collecting centres be made redundant?

Mr. Morris: That question is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Cost-effective Techniques

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what cost-effective techniques have been introduced into the use of the non-industrial Civil Service.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The Civil Service uses a wide variety of techniques to ensure the cost-effectiveness of its operations. If my right hon. Friend is interested in a particular technique, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Stonehouse: What concerns me and many others is that the techniques do not work. How does the Minister explain that, the work load during the last 12 years having gone up by between 5 per cent. and 8 per cent., despite the introduction of expensive computers the size of the non-industrial Civil Service has gone up by 30 per cent? What is being done about it?

Mr. Morris: As my right hon. Friend will remember from the period when he had responsibility for Post Office administration, there are various management service techniques for looking at the jobs that civil servants do and how they are organised. Staff inspectors keep a regular eye on the way in which Civil Service jobs are manned and graded. I do not accept the statistics that my right hon. Friend gave.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister consider calling on the help of experts from Messrs. Marks and Spencer to reduce the amount of paperwork in the Civil Service?

Mr. Morris: That is a very interesting supplementary question. The Civil Service is always open to good advice. In recent times we have suffered from a surfeit of good advice.

Special Advisers

Mr. Gow: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will list the Ministers in charge of Departments who do not have special advisers.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The following Ministers in day-to-day charge of Departments do not have special advisers:

The Lord Chancellor
The Secretary of State for Employment
The Secretary of State for Industry
The Secretary of State for Defence
The Secretary of State for Scotland
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
The Lord Privy Seal
The Minister for Overseas Development
The Law Officers.

Mr. Gow: Will the Minister accept and pass on the congratulations of the whole House and the country to those Ministers who do not have special advisers? Will he please reduce the total cost—now running at £205,000 a year—incurred by the 14 Members of the Cabinet who have special advisers?

Mr. Morris: I shall be only too delighted to pass on to my right hon. Friends the congratulations of the hon. Gentleman and all others who think like him. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman may recall that special advisers were not unknown to the previous Conservative Administration. At that time, in addition to special advisers, the Civil Service administration had to live with business men's teams, which were an innovation of the previous Conservative Administration. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the appointment of special advisers was a suggestion that was welcomed by the Fulton Committee.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the policies pursued by some of the Departments concerned, they might be well advised to appoint special advisers. Will my hon. Friend pass on to his right hon. Friends the information that the best advice they could get would be from Back Benchers on the Government side of the House, and that it would be a good idea if we were listened to a little more?

Mr. Morris: I am only too eager to listen to the views of Back Benchers on any aspect of Government policy for which I have responsibility.

Dispersal

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what reactions he has received from Civil Service representatives

about the Government's plans to transfer more Civil Service jobs to Scotland.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: No representations about the Government's plans to transfer more Civil Service jobs to Scotland have been made directly to Civil Service Ministers by Civil Service representatives within the last 12 months. However, I understand that Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Overseas Development have received representations from their Departmental Staff Sides.

Mr. Canavan: Taking into account the transfer of more Civil Service jobs to Scotland and the inevitable loss of Civil Service jobs as a result of the savage cuts announced in the White Paper on Public Expenditure, will there be a net increase or a net decrease in the number of Civil Service jobs in Scotland by 1980?

Mr. Morris: At this stage I am in no position to comment on the hypothesis put forward by my hon. Friend about the future number of Civil Service jobs in Scotland. Hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies should bear in mind the extent of dispersal of civil servants to Scotland. At present there are 66,000 civil servants in Scotland. In terms of the Hardman Committee's proposals of July 1974, out of the 31,000 Civil Service jobs that were dispersed 7,000 were designated to go to Scotland.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the dispersal of the Ministry of Overseas Development to Scotland could have disastrous consequences for that Ministry? Is he also aware that there is no more argument for dispersing the Ministry of Overseas Development than there is for dispersing the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Glasgow? Does he agree that, inevitably, the Ministry needs to be in contact with experts in London and that overseas specialist personnel need to make similar journeys? Does he agree that as the Ministry must work in an integrated fashion it will be extremely difficult if part of it is dispersed and the other part is left in London?

Mr. Morris: I have noted my hon. Friend's comments and will bring them to my right hon. Friend's attention.

DEVOLUTION

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord President of the Council how many representations he has now received about the Government's White Paper on devolution.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Since the publication of the White Paper I have received 122 representations, including letters addressed to the Constitution Unit. In addition, there have been 1,700 representations to other Departments, of which 1,450 have been sent to the Welsh Office. Of the 400 organisations specifically invited to comment, 114 have so far replied to the relevant Departments.

Mr. Canavan: From these representations is it now clear that a large number of individuals and organisations concerned with Scottish education, including the Educational Institute of Scotland, the National Union of Students and the leadership of the STUC, are of the opinion that a more democratic and coordinated system of tertiary education in Scotland could be achieved if the devolution proposals were extended in some way to include the Scottish universities?

Mr. Short: I understand the feelings of my hon. Friend and of a good many other hon. Members on this subject. It is a question of holding the balance between, on the one hand, the obvious desirability of having all the United Kingdom universities under the supervision of one University Grants Committee and, on the other, the natural desire in Scotland to deal with the whole area of further education under one umbrella. This is one of the areas in which we are studying the representations that we have received.

Mr. Crawford: There is a great feeling of cynicism in Scotland concerning Government commitments to devolution. In view of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office to honour the policies and commitments on the timetable last year, will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear assurance and an indication of the precise month in which the real—not the dummy—Bill on the Scottish Assembly will be published?

Mr. Short: A good deal of the cynicism is being generated by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. We are the first Government ever to put forward a detailed, workable, credible scheme for devolution for Scotland and Wales. As we promised, the Bill will be introduced in the House at the beginning of next Session.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the consequences of the devolution argument has been that the minds of people, for instance, in the North-West, have been concentrated on how badly they have been dealt with by the Government on such matters as the transfer and dispersal of Civil Service jobs? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that we on the Government Back Benches, and North-West Members of Parliament in particular, will be pressing for our own Question Time, so that we can concentrate the Government's attention on our problems?

Mr. Short: Without accepting the premise on which my hon. Friend based his supplementary question, I point out that I do understand his feelings on this matter. I hope that next month we shall publish the White Paper on possible schemes for devolution to the English regions.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his constant references to "the Bill" will make many people extremely uneasy—especially those who have made representations to him from Wales? Has he ruled out the possibility of having two Bills, because the situations in Scotland and Wales are wholly and completely different? These representations have been made to him on many occasions. Has he ruled out this possibility?

Mr. Short: When the right hon. Gentleman raised this matter during the debate I promised to consider it. We are certainly still considering the matter.

SPECIAL ADVISERS

Mr. Gow: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will appoint an additional special adviser to his Department.

Mr. Edward Short: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Gow: As the Lord President has only one special adviser and the Prime Minister has seven, will the Lord President tell us the nature of the advice that is given to him by his lone adviser? Will he tell us whether he has had advice on the Government White Paper on devolution? In view of the nonsense in that White Paper, will the Lord President dismiss his special adviser?

Mr. Short: The answer to the end of that long supplementary is "No, Sir". My special adviser occupies a chair and a desk in a room which, during the last Conservative Government, was occupied by a special adviser to that Government—a person who was paid for, presumably, by the Conservative Central Office. In my view it is highly undesirable that an employee of the Conservative Party should be sitting in a Government office in Whitehall. A more straightforward and a cleaner way of going about the matter is to have special advisers paid for out of public funds. In that way they are subject to Civil Service disciplines and to all the rigours of the Official Secrets Act. However, quite apart from that, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that a large number of young people are now employed by the Opposition Front Bench and paid for out of public funds. Why does the hon. Gentleman not table a Question about that matter?

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend accept the recommendation from the Conservative Party for a special adviser to one of our Ministers? If my right hon. Friend agreed to such a course, we might find out what Conservative Party policies were, and recommend them to the Government.

Mr. Short: The Government have provided a great deal of money to finance the Opposition parties. However, it has not improved the quality of the Opposition.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grotesquely unsatisfactory nature of the Lord President's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Waste Disposal

Mr. Whitehead: 43. Mr. Whitehead asked the Lord President of the Council if he is satisfied with the facilities for the disposal of waste in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Edward Short: Yes, Sir. However, if my hon. Friend wishes to raise a particular matter I shall arrange for it to be considered.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important functions of Members of Parliament is to dispose of the enormous amount of waste paper sent to them through the post, in the form of unsolicited propaganda and circulars of one kind or another? The flood-tide of such paper has increased, but why has the size of our waste paper baskets shrunk by half? May we have larger baskets?

Mr. Short: I cannot answer that question but I shall be pleased to discuss it with my hon. Friend to discover the answer.

Mr. Fairbairn: In view of the very great deal of waste on the Government Front Bench, will the Lord President arrange for its immediate disposal by having an election?

Mr. Short: No, Sir, there is no room. There is too much waste coming from the Opposition.

Mrs. Dun woody: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the waste of time that affects hon. Members who have offices in the Norman Shaw Building and who would occasionally like to get in touch by telephone with those offices, but who at present find it virtually impossible? Moreover, does the gloom in which we are now plunged mean that the waste of money in Government circles is such that we have been unable to pay the electricity bill?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. There is no waste of money in Government service—none at all. My hon. Friend has raised the question of telephones in the House, but she has made no complaint to me about the matter. If she cares to make a complaint I shall be pleased to look into it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is factually inaccurate.

Mr. Peyton: I ask the Leader of the House to look at the Official Report for many years back to see whether he can find any precedent for a Leader of the House giving the sort of answers that he has given this afternoon.

MINISTERIAL PATRONAGE

Mr. William Hamilton: 44. Mr. William Hamilton asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a Select Committee on the increase of ministerial patronage.

Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Why not?

Mr. Short: The Prime Minister has answered this question and pointed to striking examples, in recent years, of the contraction, not increase, in the granting of honours for political services.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am not talking about honours? I am talking about patronage. Is my right hon. Friend not aware that if he looks through the list of Ministers of the Crown he will find that patronage in their hands, for appointments to ad hoc bodies of one kind or another, is quite enormous and is increasing? I should be pleased if my right hon. Friend, with his well-known passion for Select Committees, would appoint a committee of five, preferably with myself as chairman, to look into the matter.

Mr. Short: That body would have to consider appointments to the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and so on.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Lord President advise the House whether, in view of Lord Brayley's massive services to the country and the eminent qualifications that entitled him to ennoblement, the Government intend to reinclude him in this Administration?

UNEMPLOYMENT REGISTER (STUDENTS)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): The unemployment figures to be issued tomorrow will show a considerable fall in unemployment. This is almost entirely due to students leaving the unemployment register. Such fluctuations arise from the large and increase-

ing numbers of students who now register in the vacations, particularly in the short Christmas and Easter vacations, and who are not yet seeking permanent employment. The consequent flow of over 100,000 on to and off the unemployment register has distorted the change in the unemployment figures in six months of the year and created considerable problems in interpreting those figures.
It has therefore been decided, with effect from March 1976, to separate from the unemployment statistics adult students who register for vacation employment. The numbers of students registering for employment will continue to be published in the unemployment Press notice but separately from the unemployment figures.
The announcement today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that he proposes to change the student support arrangements for the 1976–77 academic year means that the number of students claiming supplementary benefits at Christmas and Easter should be reduced from Christmas 1976. It does not mean that all students will be removed from the register in those vacations, nor that the numbers registering in the summer vacation will be reduced.

Mr. Hayhoe: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming to the House and making that statement. As he referred to a considerable fall in unemployment, may I ask whether the seasonally adjusted trend tomorrow will show a fall or an increase? Is he aware that, among many others, the Centre for Policy Studies has been pointing out for some time the absurdity of including students on holiday in the unemployment figures?
Will he understand that a more wide-ranging review is desirable? Today's tinkering seems directed more towards avoiding newspaper headlines about over 1½ million unemployed in April, and taking account of the start of this year's conference season for trade unions than getting the basis for comparative unemployment figures right. Is not this another example of the right hon. Gentleman putting short-term political presentational considerations first? What effect, if any, will there be on students' entitlement to supplementary benefits?

Mr. Foot: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the seasonally adjusted figures tomorrow.

Mr. Hayhoe: They are misleading.

Mr. Foot: They are not misleading. I am making this statement today so that, when the figures are published tomorrow, people are under no misunderstanding about the situation. The figures to be published tomorrow will be in the same form as they have been hitherto. As we shall be announcing a different form for the following month, I thought it right to tell the House today so that hon. Members could put questions about it. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the statement on that ground.
Neither my statement nor that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science implies any criticism of students who have put down their names for supplementary benefits in any of the vacations. We think it is a commonsense arrangement that those, such as students, who are not seeking permanent employment should not be included with those who are seeking permanent employment.
I have stated previously my reasons for not accepting what has been said by the Centre for Policy Studies. I do not accept that the figures should be reduced on the scale suggested. That would be misleading. In some respects the figures would be higher than the heavy figures we have had to report to the House.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is extremely difficult to adjust to what he said as we have not had the opportunity of seeing the statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, which I understand is to be published as a Written Answer? Is he happy that this will be seen by students as more than sleight of hand? Many students have to pay rent in their halls of residence during the two shorter recesses. Will they find that the new block grant gives them the right amount of money to pay their rent?

Mr. Foot: No sleight of hand is intended or is operating in any sense. My hon. Friend and others, including students, will no doubt wish to look at the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am sure that if they have any questions they will put them to him. They may not be able to do so today, but there are other opportunities for

putting questions. I do not believe that there will be any misapprehension. I know that the House and the country are naturally deeply concerned about the unemployment figures. Therefore, I thought that, before the statement was published, it was only right to say what was happening.

Mr. Hordern: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there are many others, apart from students, who are seasonally unemployed for one reason or another? Therefore, if there is a case for distinguishing students in this way, is there not also a case for those other categories of people? Does he also appreciate that many of us find disturbing the number who have been unemployed for more than six months? Will he revise these statistics so that the figures for those who have been unemployed for more than six months appear monthly, not three-monthly as they do now?

Mr. Foot: As I have said, the figures do not require restatement or rearrangement in other respects than those which I have announced. I do not accept the proposals for rearrangement made by the Centre for Policy Studies. If other suggestions are made by hon. Members for looking at the way in which we consider the figures in order to make them clear, we shall be ready to consider them. This month there are some on the register who are not seeking permanent employment. They do not represent such a large number as the students. However, it would be difficult to differentiate. As the hon. Gentleman rightly indicated, there are some who could come in that category. But it would not be right for the House to judge that there could be any great reductions in the unemployment figures as suggested by the Centre for Policy Studies. I repudiate that suggestion altogether. That would be misleading the House and the country.

Mr. Pardoe: Could not the right hon. Gentleman approach the problem more constructively in view of what has been suggested by the Conservative Opposition Front Bench? Now mat both the major parties agree that unemployment is good for us, should he not accept the invitation to fiddle the figures so that future Governments can be absolved from


responsibility for dealing with the problem?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that unemployment is good for anybody, including me. It is an appalling business, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. I think that he made a joke in very poor taste.

Mr. John Mendelson: If we accept, as I think we should, that today is not the time to go into the unemployment figures, as they have not yet been published, does not that lead us to ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement tomorrow so that his statement on unemployment and what the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be announcing later today can be considered in questions to him tomorrow afternoon?

Mr. Foot: It is not normal for statements to be made when the unemployment figures are published. I made a statement to the House when the figures rose most spectacularly in November last year. Whether it would be wise or right to have a statement every month on unemployment figures is a matter which the Government are prepared to consider if hon. Members wish it. I agree that the figures are so serious that we should constantly debate them in this House, whether or not we have replies to questions on days when the figures are announced.

Mr. Tugendhat: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern)? His announcement today represents a welcome improvement in the presentation of the figures but a great deal more needs to be done, especially in differentiating between the long-term unemployed and those unemployed for such a short time.

Mr. Foot: I think that the figures now give the clearest picture. If we can make further improvements we shall give those matters consideration. I make it clear that I do not accept the proposals of the Centre for Policy Studies. I do not accept that the figures it lists give an accurate impression of unemployment totals. I am ready to consider any suggestions for further improvements in the figures. I repudiate the recommendations of the Centre for Policy Studies, which I think are misleading.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that some of us feel that while the figures are abnormally high it would do the Government good for the Minister responsible to come to the Dispatch Box whenever necessary to try to explain why such extraordinary totals have been reached? Does he accept that while he may be spiriting away a few thousand students from the list, it will need more than spiritualism to get rid of £1½ million currently unemployed? That will need some positive action from the Government of which my right hon. Friend is a member.

Mr. Foot: I am not talking about spiriting away any people or figures from the unemployment total. I am proposing—I think that the House will accept this—a commonsense way of presenting these serious figures. I agree that unemployment is the most serious problem facing the country. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that I have never run away from any debate or discussion in the House, and I do not propose to start doing so now. I am prepared to discuss these matters if the House wishes discussion to take place.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the House will recognise that the right hon. Gentleman was right to make his statement, and it was characteristic of him that he did so, but will he explain why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was not prepared to make a statement on a matter of considerable importance, a matter which has a considerable bearing on what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has himself made a statement?

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I do not accept any reflection on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The proposals that my right hon. Friend is making for an alteration in the arrangements for students' grants will not come into operation until the next academic year. Therefore, the House will have the fullest opportunity for any discussions in which it may wish to engage. I believe that the more the House considers these matters, the more it will recognise that the combined statements represent the commonsense approach to the problem.

Mr. Noble: As the unemployment statistics are a most important indicator for determining Government policy, does my right hon. Friend accept that we welcome the fact that the figures will be more accurate even though we deplore the present unemployment levels? We deplore the Government's refusal to listen to the words that have come from my hon. Friends and from the TUC.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in determining Government policy it is more important to consider the loss of job opportunities in many areas rather than the level of unemployment statistics? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to take that factor into account when determining such matters as development area status in North-East Lancashire?

Mr. Foot: I agree that it is not only unemployment statistics but the loss of job opportunities that has to be taken into account. There is no dispute between us on that. I come from an area which suffers serious unemployment and a great loss of job opportunities. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. My hon. Friend suggested that we do not listen to the views of members of the TUC, but I have listened to them on quite a number of occasions. In fact, I listened to them again this morning. The Government will take the fullest account of the representations that they have made.

Mr. Burden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the unemployment figures that will be published tomorrow, although showing a reduction on last month, will show a substantial increase when compared with the comparable month of last year? Does he agree that that is the relevant comparison? Will this fact be made clear when the figures are published?

Mr. Foot: The figures will show the comparisons as they have done previously. Anyone can make comparisons between a year ago or any other period. Although the removal of the number of students applying for supplementary benefit will appear in the statement, that removal will not alter in any way the seasonally adjusted figure for unemployment. That is the true figure to be taken into account. Students have always been

excluded from that figure. It would be right for the House and the country to pay chief attention to the seasonally adjusted figure, which is the most accurate figure.

Dr. Bray: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the seasonally adjusted figure on the new basis will be published for past months so mat we can judge the true current trend in unemployment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the numbers of unemployed for periods longer than six months are already published every quarter, and that those who are unemployed for more than four weeks are published every month?

Mr. Foot: We publish very full figures. No attempt is made to suppress them. If the House wants to make comparisons with earlier periods the figures will be published. What I have said makes no difference to the seasonally adjusted figure.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Steen: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Employment. Last week the right hon. Gentleman repudiated the charges that I made in an Oral Question, in which I gave the correct figures for unemployment in job creation terms in and on Merseyside. Those figures were repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that they were incorrect. Subsequent to that I wrote the right hon. Gentleman two letters, having obtained the figures from his Department, pointing out that the matters should be corrected in Hansard. That has not been done. To add insult to injury, in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday the chief civil servant in charge of the job creation programme wrote:

"The MP"

—that is myself—
should belt up and come and help us.
I shall be quite pleased to belt up, Mr. Speaker, but you should know that I offered to join the Action Committee on Merseyside and that my offer was refused. I thought that this matter should come to your notice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The content of Ministers' replies is the responsibility of Ministers and has nothing to do with the Chair. That has often been said.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, I received no notification from the hon. Gentleman that he proposed to raise this matter in the House. If he wanted to do so, I think that he should have let me know.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer this point now, but perhaps he will investigate the remark that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) alleges came from a civil servant. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that such a comment would be highly improper.

Mr. Foot: I shall not comment until I know the full circumstances. I shall have to ascertain whether the Press report is correct. As I have said, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) gave me no notice that he was to raise the matter in the House. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) would wish to repudiate that conduct.

Mr. Burden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled on this point. In fact, it is not a point of order but is a matter of dispute between two parties.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) raising a new point of order?

Mr. Lane: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) wishes to raise a new aspect.

Mr. Speaker: There must be something wrong with my eyes. I am addressing the hon. Member for Gillingham.

Mr. Burden: It is a related matter, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps it is for your guidance. There have been complaints from the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not fair to take the time of the House unless it is a genuine point of order.

Mr. Lane: My point arises from the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). Surely it should be put on record that, in the opinion of many of us, no one has done more to help the job creation programme than my hon. Friend.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Gorst: In raising this matter, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to criticise the judiciary. My purpose is to ask you whether a breach of privilege is involved as a result of an order which has been imposed by a judge, and, if not, whether the importance of the precedent which has been set by the order requires the consideration of the Committee of Privileges.
The matter in question arises from the following situation. On 13th January a constituent of mine, a Mr. Donald Smith, was sent to prison for contempt of a court order forbidding him from seeing his two sons. Two days later I visited him in prison, and thereafter I tabled some Early-Day Motions which became the subject of Press reports the following day. Thirteen days later my constituent was released from prison but was ordered not to have any contact with the Press on the subject of his two sons.
Last Friday, when Mr. Smith was granted custody of his two sons, the judge ruled:
There will be an injunction restraining both parents communicating directly or indirectly to the Press, or any other media, things related to the wards of court.
I understand that counsel's opinion is that the judge's ruling means that I, as Mr. Smith's Member of Parliament, cannot speak to the Press about this subject as it would be "indirectly" discussing the children.
It is not a new thing for injunctions to be imposed restraining people from making statements, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an injunction of the courts which has the effect of inhibiting or regulating freedom of speech or communication between a constituent and his Member of Parliament is in a different


category from any other court ruling, since it surely affects the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a Member of this House.
I believe that we have a duty not only to respond to public opinion but also to consult, discuss and, if necessary, mould it in places outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.
The position as I see it is that my constituent can no longer, after three and a half years of doing so, discuss his case with me. Apart from this, there are several aspects of my constituent's case which touch upon matters which have been raised in the recent Committee on One-Parent Families.
I do not believe that it is in the public interest that Members of Parliament should be prevented from making references to actual cases, especially when the demands of their constituents dictate otherwise. Nor is it right that the only forum for the discussion of public issues should be this House. For example, it would surely be rightly resented if either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition refused to make any speeches outside Parliament. The public expect speeches to be made outside Parliament.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I ask you for your guidance on these three points. The first is whether the matter of the judge's ruling can be investigated as a breach of parliamentary privilege. Secondly, if it cannot, can the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for it to consider the implications of a ruling which, in effect, prohibits free communications between a constituent and his Member of Parliament and between a Member of Parliament and the Press? Finally, now that the two boys are my constituents, as a result of the judge's order, is it a breach of privilege for the courts effectively to deny them access

to their Member of Parliament or to deny their Member of Parliament access to them?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Following previous practice, I shall give my ruling tomorrow.

Mr. English: You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that apart from the Attorney-General I am the only remaining Member of this House who served on the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament. If the facts are as stated by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), I hope you will realise that he has made a very grave case indeed.

BILL PRESENTED

POST OFFICE

Mr. Ronald Bell, supported by Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. John Wells and Mr. Kenneth Lewis, presented a Bill to restore the Post Office to the position of a Department of State under a Postmaster General; and for purposes connected therewith; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th March and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Rating (Caravan Sites) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Pendry.]

Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second reading committees).

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It may seem almost a contradiction in terms to say that a Bill is both important and non-controversial, but I believe both these adjectives apply fully to the present Bill.
Because the powers of local authorities are limited to those provided by statute, it is necessary to provide powers in a number of instances for quite small matters. These are powers that individual local authorities have found to be necessary to secure the efficient conduct of their work, to protect the public and so on.
Over the years there has been a great flow of legislation promoted by individual local authorities in Private Bills to secure such powers either for a single local authority or for all local authorities in a county. The process has continued over the years until we now have a quite unmanageable mountain of local legislation.
The previous Government quite rightly concluded that the reorganisation of local government, which would leave new authorities with a hotch-potch of powers for different parts of their areas, was the ideal opportunity to tackle this mountain of local legislation—much of which is no longer appropriate to present-day needs, or related to a specific period of time and is now spent, or has been overtaken by public general legislation. Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 therefore provided that the great bulk of local legislation which had been promoted by local authorities should be repealed in 1979 in the metropolitan counties, and in 1984 elsewhere.
That deferred repeal gave local authorities a breathing space to comb through their existing legislation, decide what they still needed, and promote Private Bills before the existing legislation

expired, to give them the powers they still need and in an up-to-date form. Local authorities are proceeding with this exercise, and the first such rationalisation Bill was presented in another place last Session.
However, action by the local authorities is not all that is required. Some of the powers which many authorities had before under local legislation are of general application, and it clearly makes sense for these powers to be conferred by public general legislation applying to the whole of England and Wales rather than for each county to include parallel provisions—perhaps in varying forms—in their local Bills.
Thus public general legislation is needed to complement the rationalisation Bills on which local authorities are at present working. Such public legislation is needed to keep the volume of new local Act provisions within a reasonable compass for the benefit of the promoters, their agents, Parliament itself and all manner of ordinary citizens who will have dealings with this legislation in the years to come. The present Bill is such a measure. It consists almost entirely of well-precedented and non-controversial clauses which have been assembled after consultation with the associations of local authorities. I say "almost entirely" because there is one other matter which is also covered by the Bill. This is a first step in the rationalisation of the Public Health Acts, and I shall be coming back to it again later.
Meanwhile, I should like to linger for a moment on the concept of well-precedented and non-controversial provisions, as it may be important when we come to Committee. We have concentrated on well-precedented provisions because this Bill is, as I said, intended to complement the "rationalisation" Bills promoted by local authorities. Thus it is intended to pick up existing provisions which a substantial number of local authorities have found useful. It is not intended to break entirely new ground or to pick up pioneering provisions restricted to a few local Acts. In this respect it is similar in kind to the Public Health Act of 1961, which was similarly restricted to these well-precedented provisions.
We have also concentrated on non-controversial provisions because we wish


to provide local government with a substantial array of useful and generally acceptable powers without taking up an inordinate amount of parliamentary time.
It may be felt by some that this is not enough: that local authorities need for their smooth and economical working to have further powers which are new departures, not well-precedented in local legislation, or for which a good case can be hammered out on merits, despite some areas of controversy. Both these things may be true. We are considering with the associations of local authorities what provisions may come into these categories, and will then consider how to carry the matter forward. But meanwhile such provisions are not apt for the present Bill.
I now say a word on finance. In view of the current restraints on local authority expenditure, I should stress that all these modest powers are discretionary. They place no obligations on local authorities, and only Clauses 10 and 11, which relate to district heating, depend on the availability of capital.
Now that I have dealt with the general purpose of the Bill, what it aims to do and what it does not do, let me come to the individual provisions.

Mr. Ian Grist: In view of the fact that there will be more controversial provisions coming forward either in Public Bills or in privately-promoted Bills, will the Minister say whether, under Section 262(9)(b) of the 1972 Act, the Government may be prepared to defer the dates by which authorities have to bring forward their own Bills, since the time is very short for them to do so?

Mr. Oakes: I do not think that we should talk about deferment. We are talking about powers of the metropolitan authorities which expire in 1979 and about powers of the non-metropolitan authorities which expire in 1984. This Bill, dealing with the non-controversial aspects and provisions in many local Acts, may cut out many of the things that local authorities would have to ask this House to do.
In terms of local authorities' own requirements, two matters arise. The first is the Public Bill, such as the one we are discussing with the associations

at present. It is still only 1976, which will give us three years to run until 1979 anyway. Then there are their own Private Bills. Only last week we had an example of an enterprising authority bringing a Private Bill before the House. I have no doubt that many others will do likewise. I stress, however, that this is a very different kind of Bill. In my opinion, it would be very difficult for any hon. Member to raise a spark of controversy on the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Peter Rost: The Minister referred to financial provisions with regard to the district heating clauses. Will he confirm that it is now intended to allow district heating schemes to be eligible for grants under the housing subsidy grants rather than simple loan finance, which appears to be the present situation?

Mr. Oakes: I am coming specifically to the district heating provisions, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, if not during my speech, from advice that I am able to give him during the course of the debate.
I said that I should be coming to the individual provisions. The first of them relates to Clause 7, which enables a local authority to secure property condemned as unfit and vacated as a result of action under the Housing Acts. I know that some local authorities would like us to extend this to cover all empty property. But we are not convinced that local authorities should be made the general guardians of empty property. The clause is therefore limited to property which is empty as a result of local authority action.

Clauses 10 and 11, which enable local authorities to produce and sell heat and electricity, are perhaps the most significant clauses in the Bill. They have been welcomed by the District Heating Association and the local authority associations. Their purpose is to enable local authorities to supply heat from a common source to both the public and private sectors. Often low-grade fuels will be used and it can, therefore, offer worthwhile fuel savings as well as providing social benefits, particularly for the old and the sick. In the long run these powers should be of great value, but no additional provision is made for capital investment for the purpose. We may, therefore, see a slow start to its use,


apart from areas which have already established district heating schemes under their old local Act powers.

In answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), I understand that we are now considering the point he has made and that it will be clarified during the Committee stage.

Clause 12 and Schedule 1 empower local authorities to acquire compulsorily, on payment of compensation, rights over land instead of purchasing the land itself. This should avoid the acquisition of the land itself when only an easement or right is required.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Is it the Minister's intention to deal with Clause 14? I note what he said at the begining of his speech, but am I right in thinking that this clause does not extend powers in any way? May I have an assurance that there is authority at present to produce the evidence of authority to enter after entering the land which is referred to in subsection (3)(a)?

Mr. Oakes: I am afraid that I cannot at the moment answer the hon. Gentleman's question about Clause 14. I hope to do so during the course of my speech. I tried to single out those clauses in the Bill, where there is very little controversy, which I thought would be of the greatest concern to the House. However, it is an important point and I shall try to answer it before I sit down.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I shall not trouble the House with a speech on this matter, but the Minister dealt rather quickly with Clause 12, which relates to compulsory purchase orders for the purchase of rights. He said that this would enable the compulsory purchase of easements. However, in subsection (1) there is a reference to "new rights", meaning rights which are not in existence when the order specifying them is made. Any easement must be in existence at that time because it arises normally by a process of prescription which envisages the passage of a period of time. Can the Minister clarify that reference?

Mr. Oakes: There is this point of prescription, though no doubt we can deal with it in Committee. But it is not only that kind of provision that the sub-

stance of the clause is aimed at. Under many local Acts, but only local Acts, there are at present powers for a local authority to acquire an easement or right over land for a specific purpose. Under general legislation, they would have to acquire the land itself. Clearly there will be many instances where a local authority has no desire or need to acquire the land. We are trying in this legislation to make general provision for a right to acquire an easement rather than to have to purchase the land where only an easement is required. But the point of prescription with regard to new rights as well as to rights acquired by prescription is a matter which we can look at in Committee.

Clause 15 gives local authorities a general power, for the purpose of performing their functions, to obtain information about the ownership of land. This, like the other provisions, is well precedented in Private Acts and replaces several such powers already in Public Acts.

Clause 18 is based on various local Act precedents to provide golf courses and other specific items which, it has been argued, do not come within the scope of Section 4 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. The clause replaces Section 4 by a more widely-drawn new power to provide all the kinds of recreational facilities which are needed today. The clause would be subject to the same financial constraints as Section 4 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937.

I stress again that the powers provided by this legislation are discretionary powers. They are discretionary powers which have to be exercised within the present financial restraints that the House is imposing upon local authorities and, indeed, upon our nation generally.

Clauses 22 and 26 are the only ones which are not based on local Acts. They reflect the secondary purpose of the Bill, which is to make certain repeals and amendments to the Public Health Acts 1875 and 1936. This is a piece of tidying up needed by the Law Commission before it tackles the enormous job of consolidating the Public Health Acts. All the powers repealed are spent, and local authorities will not be handicapped in any way by their demise. Subsection (6) preserves them in so far as they may be


applied by any other enactment, including a local Act.

Clause 23 amends Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972 so as to enable local authorities to establish funds for the purpose of meeting expenditure in connection with their functions. Frequently local Act powers have been conferred for the establishment of specific funds for such purposes as insurance, renewals and repairs, research and even, in some instances, for snow-clearing. It seems right now to give local authorities discretion to establish such funds as they wish.

Mr. Michael Morris: I wonder whether the Minister would confirm during the debate whether the point about the precepting of one authority upon another has been approved by all the various associations of councils?

Mr. Oakes: I understand that it has been approved by the three main bodies affected by the Bill—the County Councils Association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the District Councils Association. I am not over-sure whether this point has been cleared by the Local Councils Association, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I cannot answer off the cuff on that, but I shall let him know. It has certainly been approved by the three main associations.
Before coming on to Clauses 27 and 28, I come to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones), who asked about various points arising in Clause 14. I am afraid that the dramatic answer that I shall give now—because of the complications—is that I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on these points before the Committee stage so that he will have the points cleared up by then.
Clauses 27 and 28 are indeed somewhat modern in their provisions because they reflect the ravages of Dutch elm disease and give powers for local authorities to cut down trees in certain circumstances on private land. I know that some local authorities would like us to extend the power to give an unfettered right to local authorities to enter all land and to cut down trees at their discretion but at the expense of the owner. We believe that this would be wrong. Powers for local

authorities to enter on private land need to be approached with great caution and I do not believe that such wide powers would be justified. This clause is therefore designed to enable local authorities to enter and cut down at the invitation of owners or occupiers or where a tree endangers persons or property adjoining land.
These, therefore, are some of the more substantial powers in the Bill. It is not a Bill which will make significant changes in local authority responsibility but it is an important Bill in the context of attempts that the local authorities and central Government are making to bring sense and order into the local legislation statute book. I think that nearly all the provisions of the Bill are entirely uncontroversial, and as a reflection of that fact I say to the House that the members of the Committee, on all sides, will be given full notes on clauses in the Bill in order to speed its passage, because, as I say, it is entirely uncontroversial although nevertheless a welcome and useful measure.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: I should like to thank the Minister straight away both for the careful way in which he has taken us through this legal maze and in particular for the offer that he made in his closing remarks, which we accept. We certainly put him out of his misery by saying straight away that we do not propose to oppose the Bill this evening, although I think that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would not be quite as enthusiastic about the non-controversiality of the Bill as the hon. Gentleman.
As the Minister said, to an extent the Bill flows from Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, and particularly subsection (9), which, we appreciate, provides that powers under Private Acts, to a greater or lesser extent, will be repealed in metropolitan counties in 1979 and five years later elsewhere. However, there is one point here that I want to put to the hon. Gentleman. Part VII of the 1972 Act, particularly Section 111, gives very wide miscellaneous powers at present to local authorities. I presume that it is their view, as well as that of the hon. Gentleman and of the House, that many clauses in the Bill will be helpful, in addition


to the wide powers given in Part VII of the 1972 Act.
In giving general approval to the Bill, perhaps I should also start by giving the Opposition's general approach to these matters. I hope that in so doing I shall not be ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. Gentleman referred to other and perhaps more substantial Bills about local authority powers which are to come.
We certainly believe that the time has come to give local authorities much greater freedom than they have been given previously, under any Government. Indeed, many of their present problems and the problems of previous years are caused and have been caused by constant references backwards and forwards between central Government and local government departments. There are many things that local government could and should determine locally. Since the 1972 reorganisation we have at least got basically the right sort of set-up, so that we now have local authorities which are viable to make these local determinations. Clearly, there are certain essential and fundamental matters of policy—housing, education, transport, health and other social services—on which one has to have basic minimum national standards. I do not think that the House would want to get away from that matter. Having accepted the national basic minimum standards however, there are many other areas in which we can trust local government much more than we have been prepared to do in the past.
In recent weeks around the country I have had experience of matters such as housing improvement and transport—I am sure that the Minister has, too—in which a great deal of time, effort and money has been wasted both by the Department's officials and by officers of local government and councillors in trying to determine things which local government ought now to be able to determine. That being so, at the same time the Opposition would also go much further on the path that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now hesitantly treading and would impose meaningful cash limits for total local government expenditure, which is now nearly one-third of an already much-too-high public expenditure.
In a nutshell, we are now convinced that much tighter control of local government expenditure has to be exercised from the centre on the basis of what the country can afford and not on the basis of what services are desirable. Within that tight cordon of expenditure, much greater freedom should be given to local authorities to determine their own priorities and carry out functions in the way they see best.
My personal view—I stress the word "personal" as I have said this previously—certainly as far as England is concerned, is that this is the only kind of devolution that I want to see from Whitehall to county hall and town hall. Perhaps the Bill is a hesitant first step. I do not think that the Bill helps in the strategic approach to greater freedom, and the hon. Gentleman has not advanced the case that it should. It is a series of rationalisation measures most of which we find acceptable, but there are question marks over one or two of them.
The first item in question is the matter of consultation. As I understand it, the Bill has been kicked around the Department for some time. I suspect that I could hear rumblings of it floating around the Department when I was there, and it has been discussed with a number of bodies—the CBI, the AMA, the ACC and the Association of District Councils. However, they have also put forward—I know that the Association of County Councils has done so—the view that there are a number of other items which ought to be included. I have here a letter from the National Association of Local Councils, which has some reservations and, indeed, some amendments that it would wish to see made to the Bill.
From reading the letter I am disturbed to learn that the association has apparently not been consulted. If that is so, it is unfortunate because that association represents thousands of parish, town and community councillors. It does not promote a vast amount of private legislation, but it is concerned in all these matters. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell us whether it was consulted. If it was not, it was not only discourteous but, frankly, not sensible. I hope that it can be included in future consultations.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) replies to the debate from this side, he will make a number of fairly pungent and relevant points about individual clauses of the Bill. The Minister did not go into Clause 1 at great length, but we support it. However, there are problems of access for private owners which are not referred in the clause. That matter could be quite important and we may wish to examine it further.
I particularly welcome Clause 5, which deals with what I call the aerosol paint spray syndrome which seems to be prevalent throughout the country. This is a thoroughly vexing issue and many people, including myself, get excited at the aesthetic vandalism that takes place. There is the problem of enforcement of the new powers given in the Bill and the new penalties, because highways, signs or trees are usually sprayed in the middle of the night and the first anyone knows of it is early next morning. Nevertheless, we should not throw out the clause on those grounds alone. I welcome Clause 5.
The Minister mentioned Clauses 10 and 11. If my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will enlarge on those clauses. They give a general power which is quite wide, and some small authorities could be involved.
I accept what the Minister said about Clause 18. The recreational powers also seem to be drawn pretty wide and this, perhaps, should be looked at in Committee.
The principle of the Bill is that clauses for inclusion should be both non-controversial and well precedented. I understand that Clause 26, which the Minister dealt with quickly together with an earlier clause, has been taken from public health legislation and deals with works connected with that legislation such as, sewerage.
Clause 26 gives us great cause for concern at present. It is one reason why I welcome this debate on the Floor of the House today rather than in Committee. It is one of the shortest clauses in the Bill and could be potentially the most explosive. I understand that local authorities could exercise their powers to carry out considerable work outside as well as

within their areas and could thus greatly extend the scope of their direct labour operations, particularly in connection with their land acquisition powers in other local authority areas.
In another context the Minister referred to the recent West Midlands Bill which is now, happily, 6 ft. under. He will be aware that Conservative Members are extremely sensitive about this matter for a number of reasons. There are also the proposed Tyne and Wear Bill and the Greater London Council Bill, which propose a considerable extension of direct labour work. We know that the Minister for Planning and Local Government and the Minister for Housing and Construction have well-publicised desires for a massive extension of direct labour—a concept which we reject, particularly in the light of the Government's refusal to endorse or recommend local authorities to accept the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy recommendations on the tendering for and administration of direct labour work.
Although we shall not oppose the Bill, because that would be wrong, we shall want to probe that clause in Committee. We must reserve the right, if we are not satisfied, to take appropriate action on Report or on Third Reading.
We accept the concept of the Bill. It does not go far enough in certain fundamental areas and in other respects it goes too far. There must be a major reappraisal of central and local government relationships, because basically we believe that local government is now equipped to do more than any Government have allowed it to do in the past. That fundamental change has to await fundamental changes in local government finance which, we believe, are necessary.
At this stage I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. We hope that it will prevent a plethora of Private Bills being promoted in the future, which is both expensive and time-consuming for the House and for local authorities. The Minister will, of course, appreciate that we shall wish to probe a number of matters in Committee.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I was amazed to hear the hon. Member


for Ashford (Mr. Speed) make a statement which he said all hon. Members can accept. He claimed that the local government reform of 1972 had produced basically the right set-up, and that it could now be given increased powers. I should have thought that it was common ground among all hon. Members that the reorganisation of local government left us in a worse and more difficult situation. If not, I do not know what the hon. Gentleman meant by his statement.

Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman should put that question to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government. About a year ago I asked the Minister whether he had any proposals for basic changes in the present set-up and he replied "No". I made the point that we have a stronger and more viable local authority organisation which has been hit by inflation. Under the present set-up we can give it more powers.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The reorganisation of the health service is an example where so many changes have been made that it is not practicable, without considerable disturbance, to propose immediate further alternations. People would not know where they were. That does not mean to say that we accept the situation. We look forward to the time when the local government set-up can be more effective.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford on some matters. I believe that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities would have wished more powers to be included in the Bill. We understand the arguments on matters of this sort and the efforts to achieve a relatively non-controversial Bill. However, we can be so non-controversial as to be anaemic, and the Bill is just that—it lacks vitality.
I want to suggest one or two areas, which would still come within the definition of "non-controversial", which it would have been valuable to include in the Bill. I regret that the Association of Local Councils was not consulted. No doubt the Minister will clear that matter up when he replies. When he introduced the Bill and explained its general intentions, my hon. Friend said that both metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties were considering their own local powers, as they are required to do, and

were bringing forward their own proposals. He said that he hoped that this measure would make unnecessary some provisions which might otherwise have to be dealt with on a local basis. That is broadly true, but I still regret that items which have been long discussed in local government quarters and in this House have not been included.
An excellent private Bill has been presented by the Tyne and Wear Council—a Bill to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred discouragingly.

Mr. Speed: Hear, hear.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Obviously the hon. Member has not read that Bill. One clause which I believe would have his support deals with some of the problems of licensing hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. This matter has been discussed in the past in an attempt to clarify the position because of the great difficulties in the North-East and many other areas where strong objection has been expressed to the way in which some private hire vehicles have been allowed to operate to the detriment of hackney carriages. Some local Acts have been passed, notably in London, in a modest attempt to deal with this matter.
Some years ago, some of my hon. Friends and I secured promises from the previous Government that they intended to bring in legislation to deal with the matter nationally. Private measures have been withdrawn on that understanding. But despite the passage of years and the application of a good deal of pressure, nothing has been done. That is why the Tyne and Wear Council has included a lengthy clause on the matter.
This matter is pre-eminently suitable for inclusion in a Bill of this sort. It affects many areas, not just Tyne and Wear. It certainly involves no party divisions. I hope that the Minister will tell me either that a kindly view will be taken on an amendment to the Bill along these lines or that this will be a strong point in favour of the House accepting the Private Bill which I have mentioned.
It is common ground in these times that major local authorities should have reasonable opportunity at least to help to deal with severe unemployment problems, especially in industrial areas and above all in the most severely-hit older industrial areas. With that very proper


issue in mind, the Tyne and Wear Council included in its Bill modest provision to ensure that the main local authorities there should have wider powers to stimulate industrial and commercial development, with good will and in partnership with private enterprise and other authorities. Surely that is precisely the kind of provision that we should welcome. Again, it might have been included in the present Bill, since it is of concern not only to local authorities in my area.
I am sure that the Bill is valuable, but I still regret the omission of the provisions to which I have referred. I hope that we shall be able to discuss them in Committee.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: As the Minister said, this is a non-controversial Bill and I do not want to introduce controversy. I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). I, too, was surprised to hear what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) said about giving greater autonomy to local authorities. I support the idea in principle, but the last local government reform did not help in that direction——

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member got what he asked for.

Mr. Ross: With respect, we did not get what we asked for.

Mr. Graham Page: You did.

Mr. Ross: We did not get what we wanted in the Isle of Wight and anyone will say privately that the system we have is almost impossible to work.
The hon. Member for Ashford does not want to see any further changes in the two-tier system of the county and the district. Is that a structure which can give meaningful devolution to local authorities? I do not believe it is. We must think regionally if we want to give power back to local areas. In that way, Acts of Parliament could be adapted according to local needs. For example, it would be helpful if it could be provided that the 1974 Rent Act need not apply in some areas. To make such a provision for the area of a county council, however, would involve numbers which were too small.
If we really want to give power to local authorities, they must have power to raise a proportion of their own finance without interference. Neither major party has made such a proposal. They should be able to raise, I believe, between 20 and 30 per cent. of their own finance. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) moved in that direction, but what he produced was a bed tax which the coastal resorts naturally did not feel was beneficial. However, a landing lax would be popular with local authorities in the Isle of Wight and others come to mind.
I welcome Clause 1, which gives local authorities powers to erect flagpoles and pylons on the highway to display advertisements. They should also be able to display election material. When I visited the borough of Solihull once I was impressed by the fact that at election time candidates' posters were put up by the local authority one after another on the lamp posts. That was a neat way of avoiding the tendency to scare the countryside at election time something of which all of us and our supporters have been guilty. That kind of election-time vandalism could be avoided in this way.
Clause 16 arises out of the Public Health Act 1961 and Section 231 of the Public Health Act 1936. This matter is dear to my heart. I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill to give local authorities the power to take action in respect of private swimming pools whose facilities are enjoyed by members of the public for which they pay no fee. I believe that a simple amendment to the Bill would cover that situation. A Home Office working party examined the subject of safety in swimming pools and on our coasts and that working party admitted that new legislation was required. I believe that the point could be covered by a slight addition to Clause 16, and perhaps we can consider this matter again in Committee.
I welcome Clause 18 covering recreational facilities. Facilities could be improved in many areas, and this certainly applies to my constituency. Obviously the burden will fall on local authorities, and anything that can be done to make the extent of their powers clearer will be greatly welcomed.
I am a little concerned over the situation which is arising where premises that


are empty are half-rated. I am all for the half rating of domestic properties that are left empty and put to no useful purpose, but I believe that this matter has got out of order. No doubt the right hon. Member for Crosby could assist me on this matter. I understand that it falls within the Local Government Act 1972——

Mr. Graham Page: No. It is the Local Government Act 1974.

Mr. Ross: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for putting me right. Some authorities appear to be taking these powers to ridiculous lengths. They are being applied to commercial premises that are empty and for sale and where the owners have done everything to sell the property and have even tried to obtain planning permission to change to residential occupation but have been refused. A case was brought to my notice on Saturday where an empty rundown property in a secondary situation has been rated to the extent of £650. That is surely unfair, and the authorities should reconsider the case.
I have had recent personal experience of this problem. I purchased a property for my 82-year-old mother-in-law which I intend to modernise. However, I was surprised to receive a demand for half rates. The local authority said that it had no power to waive the demand since the property had been empty for six months. Since that provision came within the 1974 Act, the local authority had no choice but to implement it.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman may be pleased to know that in cases of hardship local authorities can waive demands.

Mr. Ross: I am glad to have that remark on the record. I shall use that quotation from Hansard when I next write to the borough treasurer in my area. The advice I was given was to see the local valuation officer and to ask him to put a nil assessment on the property, but he would not be likely to agree to that request. I was certainly unaware that the property when I bought it had been empty for six months, and therefore I was most surprised to receive that demand for half rates. I cannot believe that that effect was intended in the original legisla-

tion, and I hope that perhaps somebody will listen to my plea and take the necessary action.
It is a pity that the Bill could not be widened in many respects. This is a great opportunity to give some non-controversial powers to local authorities. It was inevitable that the West Midland County Council Bill was lost, but there were provisions in that Bill which would have been of value to local authorities. I particularly instance the provision relating to noise, dogs and other important points. When Private Bills of that nature are thrown out, a substantial cost is thrown on the ratepayers—and all to no avail. I appreciate that there is a need to produce legislation reasonably quickly, but perhaps we should seek to give local authorities more powers in other respects.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I wish to select three matters for comment in this many-faceted Bill. First, I wish to refer to the matter of unoccupied premises which is dealt with in Clause 7. I should like to see that clause amended and extended to enable Welsh local authorities to deal effectively with an issue which causes much anxiety in many parts of Wales. I refer to the subject of decaying village communities. This is associated with what are called tai haf—summer houses—which are unoccupied for all but a few weeks of the year.
Local authorities in Wales need power, finance and a directive to do all they can to maintain small rural village communities in existence and to foster them. It is anti-social to uproot people from their local communities, but too often they are forced to move out, not only by lack of work but by lack of housing.
For example, my own district council of Dinefwr intends to build 150 houses in the town of Llandovery. Apparently the council will build no houses in the smaller villages within a 12-mile radius of Llandovery, although those areas are being rapidly depopulated. The local authority is prohibited from buying houses that come up for sale in those villages. In consequence, where there used to be vital communities and excellent rural schools we see a situation such as that in Cilycwm, a village now composed almost entirely of summer houses or


houses occupied almost exclusively by old-age pensioners. As a community, such a village dies.
In my parish there is a chapel in the district of Gwynfe in which there is a memorial stone to the late Reverend William Thomas, who ministered in that chapel for 40 years at the end of the last century and the beginning of this century. The stone notes the fact that he gave over 1,000 introductory letters to other churches to members of his church who had moved from the district to other, mainly industrial, areas. The whole population of that district is now fewer than 250. Yet no houses are being built there or bought in the village by the district council.
Power for local authorities to buy local houses and to let them to local people is a desperately important need in many adequate arts and sports facilities, and which a generation ago was almost monoglot Welsh-speaking, there are large villages, such as Llanbedrog and Aberdaron, where over 75 per cent. of the homes are now summer houses. So it is in Merioneth, where one house in five is a summer house. In the village of Rhyd, the proportion is over 80 per cent. summer houses. This lamentable situation is fairly general in West Wales, most of which is Welsh speaking—and we must remember that that area comprises half of Wales.
One way of measuring the sincerity of the anxiety professed by the Government to help the language and traditional life of Wales is not only to examine what is being done about a Welsh national television channel but to see whether the Government intend to give local authorities power, finance and directives to take over empty houses in these circumstances and to let them to local people.
I turn briefly to Clause 16, which promises to be useful for Dyfed, where we have a long and lovely coastline which attracts many thousands of visitors each year. Much of the coastline is in the national park area, and I would like to draw attention to the fact that discord and even conflict between the district council and the national park authority is possible. For example, the two authorities might differ about what should be done on a beach. One authority might think it right for cars and other vehicles

to be allowed on the beach, where there might be a source of revenue, but the other authority might think that this was contrary to its duties. The Bill should make plain where the ultimate authority lies, and the district council should be obliged to consult the county council when framing its byelaws.
I welcome Clause 18, which enhances the powers of local authorities to provide creational facilities. The clause refers to physical recreation, but there are other means of providing facilities for recreation in the arts. I therefore make a plea for the easiest and closest co-operation between the local councils, the Sports Council, the Arts Council and the education authority in order to provide comprehensive leisure centres with facilities for both physical and arts recreation.
For a long time I have believed that we do not show enough vision when constructing and using school buildings. Too often when facilities are provided for adult education courses, for recreation in the arts and for sport, such as swimming and field games, they are unnecessarily put in buildings which are separate from the school buildings or on land which is separate from that belonging to the school. In most cases new schools should be designed with community needs in mind. They should include a canteen, rooms for meetings of all kinds, a place for concerts with a good stage, and dressing rooms, and they should be buildings where the local library and health centre can be housed all under one roof. A swimming pool and playing fields for public as well as pupil use should be part of the complex. Such facilities are needed as much in rural areas as in industrial districts and urban conurbations.
To illustrate what I have in mind I refer to my county town of Carmarthen, where I hope that we shall have that kind of co-operation in the future. A strong movement in the area is working for a comprehensive leisure centre with a swimming pool, provision for other sports, a theatre and facilities for opera, music and the other arts. The plan coincides with the reorganisation of local secondary schools on comprehensive lines and it provides a golden opportunity for the education authority, the district council and other councils to co-operate together closely to ensure that we have adequate arts and sports facilities, and


for co-operation with the representative committee which has been elected by the public. In that way we could secure, in association with or as part of the buildings or territory of the comprehensive school, a leisure centre worthy of the province of Dyfed. It would serve a wide area including part of the industrial belt.
A development of that kind would transform facilities for some sports and all the arts in the district. All the authorities that I have named are anxious to co-operate to make Carmarthen a notable centre for physical and other recreation. I hope that the Bill will help and stimulate that aim.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost: We do not often have the opportunity to give credit to any legislation introduced by the present Government, but I regard this as such an occasion. I shall confine myself specifically to two clauses which I think have been slipped into a Bill, which is largely hotchpotch. I regard Clauses 10 and 11, which deal with district heating, as important. They mark a breakthrough by the Government to a recognition that they have a rôle to play in the promotion of a more rational use of our energy. I wish to comment on the two clauses because of my particular interest in energy conservation. I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to address my remarks to the Minister for Planning and Local Government rather than having to pester the Secretary of State for Energy.
The purpose of the two clauses is to allow local authorities to produce and sell heat and electricity. By that we have reached a notable milestone. Many experts on energy conservation and many concerned with plumbing and heating engineering, fuel consultants, scientists and many authoritative reports, official and otherwise, for many years have urged that we should do more to use our heat well and sensibly, particularly in the form of district heating.
The District Heating Association, whose membership includes more than 30 local authorities and representatives from the electricity industry, has been trying for three years to secure legislation along the lines of the Bill.

Individual district heating schemes require a Private Bill before they can go ahead. We hope that Clauses 10 and 11 will change that.
Although the clauses appear to be a move in the right direction by the Government in recognising that they have a responsibility and have to set the framework, they are only a start and do not go far enough. The powers are too limited. Restricting the powers to the production of heat and electricity, but to the sale only of heat, is not good enough.
In other countries where district heating is more advanced than here local authorities have the discretion to produce heat and to sell heat and electricity. In this country we are still encumbered by the monopoly statutory powers of the electricity industry, powers which make it impossible for anybody else to sell electricity. Under Clauses 10 and 11 it will be possible to produce heat and power and to sell electricity, but only by agreement with the CEGB and with the approval of the Secretary of State.
Can the Minister tell us how the powers are likely to be applied in individual cases as they arise? For example, how will agreement be reached? To what extent will the CEGB tolerate competition by local authorities in the sale of electricity? To what extent will the Secretary of State authorise schemes involving the sale of electricity as part of the generation of heat and power for district heating?
One of the reasons why district heating has not progressed as much in this country as it has elsewhere is that the most economic form of production generally involves the joint production of heat and electricity, using electricity almost as the by-product, the heat being the main product. Therefore, unless we can find a realistic market for the electricity produced in such schemes, with a fair price paid or with freedom to sell that electricity, the whole scheme will fall down economically. We need clarification of whether this is a genuine attempt to allow sensible, cost-effective schemes to go ahead, by ensuring that a fair price is obtained for the electricity produced, or that there will be discretion for the marketing of that electricity independently of the CEGB.
I should like to see the clauses widened to cover bodies other than local authorities. Why are only local authorities to be given powers to produce heat and electricity? Why is the private sector, for example, not to be given such powers? District heating would be most suitable for many privately-built housing estates. Housing co-operatives should also be included. There are industrial and commercial enterprises combined with homes where district heating would be an advantage and commercially viable. Nearly everywhere in the rest of the world where district heating is making rapid strides it is because many of the schemes are developed by private industry or private groups and not only by local authorities.
It is important to refer to the background of district heating in this country in order to emphasise my point that we need to do much more. In 1963 there were about three schemes. Today we have more than 500, but we should not be complacent about that figure, because most of those are very small municipal schemes. The percentage of district heating compared with domestic housing is very small here, and does not compare favourably with the rest of the world. For example, I understand that of the 30 new or developed towns in this country, which one would imagine were ideal for the development of district heating schemes, only two—Peterborough and Basingstoke—have largish district heating schemes. That is not good enough. We should be making much more progress.
Although developments are proceeding satisfactorily in a small way, what is alarming is that virtually none of the schemes that are in operation, being built or projected use reject heat from our power stations. That is a nonsense. Even Battersea Power Station, which heats part of Pimlico, does not—contrary to the general view—use the reject heat. It uses a small auxiliary generating set. We must begin to make progress in the use of waste heat from power stations for district heating rather than burning extra fuel unnecessarily. It is a criminal waste of national resources not to use the reject heat from power stations, which would be ideal in many places. Instead, we are continuing to develop district heating

schemes with their own boiler systems using their own fuel.
One major scheme in Nottingham uses municipal refuse. That is a move in the right direction. But other schemes should be tying in with the CEGB and consuming waste heat. That is what happens in the rest of the world. Here we still waste two-thirds of the energy we put into our power stations. The heat lost in the cooling systems should be used for district heating.
A reduction of air pollution has been one advantage of schemes combining heat and power production using waste heat from power stations. That has been found particularly in heavily-populated areas of Europe. The fact that we continue to waste two-thirds of our fuel in power stations and then develop separate district heating systems, burning extra oil or gas, is a scandal. The Government should take the initiative to end it.

Mr. Oakes: I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech, though it does not arise directly from the Bill—I do not say that disparagingly. The Waste Management Advisory Council, of which I am chairman, is looking into all aspects of the utilisation of not only local authority waste but waste heat. It has a committee studying the matter jointly with the Energy Committee. The hon. Gentleman is raising very important considerations.

Mr. Rost: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I am aware that a Government committee is studying the matter. I know that under Dr. Marshall, the Government's Chief Scientist, it has been investigating the application of waste heat, including its use for district heating, for about a year. But it is time for a bit more action, less talking and fewer committees. We have only to see what is happening in the rest of the world to realise that no new technology is involved. I hope that the clauses will be a beginning, and that the Government will appreciate the need to move further towards the more sensible use of our energy resources.
The matter is especially relevant today, when problems of hypothermia are affecting particularly those on low incomes, pensioners, the disabled and the housebound, who are incapable of paying the


huge electricity bills which face those who are entombed in local authority homes heated entirely by electricity. This is the sort of area where district heating would be cost effective, because in any case the taxpayer is having to subsidise these hardship cases through supplementary fuel allowances.
Apart from the benefits to comfort and health that would result, such investment in the promotion of more district heating by Government aid would make sense. The incentives which are provided in other coutnries, such as Sweden, which offers interest-free loans for connections to district heating, are well known to the Government. In Denmark one-third of all houses are now connected to some form of district heating.
Tremendous progress is being made in other countries. In Germany a vast scheme is going ahead for the application of waste heat from power stations to district heating, and Germany is not a country which wastes its public funds or resources. In fact, most of its projects are cost-effective, and there is no doubt that this project also has been found to be cost-effective.
If I were to dilate in detail about developments in the rest of the world I might be straying out of order, and I do not wish to do that. The point I wish to emphasise is that these clauses ought to be amended to provide a little more initiative for the speeding up of district heating developments, and in particular I should like to see more co-operation between the CEGB and local authorities in marketing waste heat from power stations. I understand that the CEGB has for some months been looking at 21 possible major district heating schemes using waste heat. We have not yet heard about any of them, and this is the sort of subject about which one would like to have some information to find out how seriously matters are progressing.
The benefits to the economy would be enormous. The Building Research Establishment, in its report of June 1975, estimated that we use one-third of our primary energy in this country in power stations and that only 27 per cent. of that energy actually reaches the consumer in the form of electricity, the rest being rejected. The overall efficiency of power stations in the production of electricity

and steam for district heating could be raised from about 27 per cent. to over 70 per cent.
Although one is theorising in suggesting that all domestic space and water heating could be provided from waste heat, because this is not a practical solution, nevertheless the heat being rejected by power stations in this country is enough to heat every building in this country free—free in the sense that the heat is at the moment being wasted and a large proportion of it could be used. If we were to move a fair way towards this reform, it has been reliably estimated that we could save something approaching 10 per cent. of our primary energy consumption, and that represents £1,000 million a year of our fuel bills at current prices.
The backing to what I am suggesting comes from a very wide range of authoritative reports. The recently published Plowden Report on the structure of the electricity industry emphasised the need for district heating. I therefore hope that the recommendations of the Plowden Report—I refer in particular to paragraphs 4.22 and 4.23—will be borne in mind in Committee when we consider Clauses 10 and 11.
I should like to quote the Plowden Report as follows:
A good deal of evidence has been presented to us suggesting that the electricity industry could do more to secure the economic use of fuel.
The Report also states:
The industry's structure must not impede the economic use of resources.
It goes on to refer to district heating. The Select Committee on Science and Technology produced its report on energy conservation last September. That Committee took overwhelming evidence from a large number of sources, and its recommendations included the promotion of more district heating and the removal of any disincentives in the form of statutory restraints.
By having introduced Clauses 10 and 11, the Government recognise that some action is needed. But the clauses do not go far enough. We want further widening of the powers so that we can move ahead more rapidly. I should like the Government to go even further. Why not start with a pilot scheme in Whitehall


and the surrounding areas and give real encouragement to the more economic use of our energy by using the waste heat from nearby power stations? London power stations alone could domestically heat every building in the whole of the Greater London area. One does not need to draw attention to the urgency of the more rational use of energy and the alleviation of financial and physical hardship which would result among large sections of the community if we did this.
I welcome the Bill, hoping that we can regard this as only a beginning to the Government's recognition that there is a role to play here. I hope that we shall hear less of the difficulties in the use of waste heat for district heating and a little more of the advantages, and that we shall accept our responsibilities in this House for removing the statutory constraints, for providing a few incentives and for shaking up the inertia in our system. The energy savings that will result are too large to allow us to continue to ignore them. The investment involved is cost-effective. That has been proved. It is time that we took this matter more seriously.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Morris: As the Minister said, much of this Bill is uncontroversial. We have to assess whether it should be passed into law. We all recognise that local government is going through an unhappy period, not least because of the recent history of massive rate increases, due not to the nature of reorganisation, but primarily to inflation and lack of control over staff levels.
The Bill has to be seen against the background of public disillusion and the prospect of nil growth in the expenditure of local government—a prospect not just for one year but extended over three years or for even longer. I say "a prospect" because there are still counties like Bedfordshire which continue to flout the exhortations from the Minister, and my own county of Northamptonshire which, after cutting £2 million of the impending rate increase, happily decided thereafter to spend a rate support grant of £2 million, so that the rates are going up unnecessarily. If I am selected to serve on the Standing Committee, I shall regard it as my duty to question in detail the

necessity of these clauses at a time of financial stringency. They also have to be questioned in the knowledge that there are certain functions in local government which are not being carried out adequately and for which local government cries out time and again for more resources.
There are a number of clauses with questions-marks hanging over them. I recognise the importance of Clause 7, but with my background in one of the inner London boroughs I wonder whether the power for local authorities to board up uninhabitable homes should be only discretionary. Perhaps we ought to think seriously about making it mandatory. Much of the problem of squatting and desecration of neighbouring properties is caused by the fact that empty houses have not been boarded up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) spoke wisely and at great length about Clause 10. I hope that we shall consider the rôle of oil in heating. It is being used by the Northampton Development Corporation and has proved a mixed blessing in district heating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) has expressed concern, which I share, about Clause 14. I should be grateful for a copy of the letter which is being produced for my hon. Friend.
Many of us welcome Clause 18, though there are a number of unhappy examples of local authorities providing recreational facilities with phoney costing. A golf course was provided in Northampton and electricity cables had to be re-routed, but that was not costed against the job. If we are to widen the powers of local authorities to provide recreational facilities, we must include safeguards so that ratepayers know the exact cost of projects.
When I was in local government, I viewed with considerable horror precepts from other authorities and I find it a little strange that local authority associations have accepted the power in Clause 23 to allow authorities to precept on others in order to build up their capital funds. We shall have to discuss this matter further in Committee.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), I view the provisions


of Clause 26 with some concern. There is an unhappy ratio in the Bill of powers increased to powers decreased. There are two clauses which tidy up or amend legislation and withdraw local authority powers and 35 clauses seeking more powers.
There are several points of common interest. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and I can get together in Committee to draft a new clause dealing with hackney carriages and hire cars. There are a number of towns with very unhappy experiences in this respect. This would be a marginally more controversial but considerably more useful subject for a new clause than would many other subjects.
Other matters need airing. I hope that the Government will be more forthcoming in telling the House when Bills dealing with more controversial subjects in local government are likely to come forward. There could be nothing worse for the House than having to deal with a plethora of individual local authority Bills. It would be an enormous waste of our time and of the time and resources of people in local government, as well as of ratepayers' money. If we are to have legislation on some of these more controversial subjects, the Government should tell us and give us some idea of the timing.
If there is to be nil growth in local government, we ought to ask local authorities to look stringently at some of their activities and tell us which they would like to give up. Nothing would give us more joy than to have a Bill from local authorities saying that 36 functions were out of date and that Parliament should take them back until it was prepared to give local authorities the resources to carry them out.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I have some nostalgic affection for this Bill, which has been cooing seductively in the pigeon-holes of the Department of the Environment for some years. It has at last been released to flutter down to the Floor of the House, but it seems to have lost many feathers on the way. I recollect that at one time it had 50 more clauses than it has now.
The Minister has presented it as a canary, but I am not sure that, in some parts, it is not a bit of a hawk. As a canary, we are told, it is merely pecking at a few crumbs of power incidental to the functions already carried out by local authorities. I say that it is something of a hawk because in several instances it claws into local government functions which will be expensive for the ratepayers and unfairly competitive with commercial and industrial enterprises in an authority's area. In Committee we shall have to study carefully the purport of each item, read the small print, read between the lines, explore every avenue, turn every stone and do all the other things which denote a careful examination of the Bill.
I admit that local government reorganisation laid the egg from which this bird was hatched. Section 262(9) of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that local statutory provisions should cease to have effect in metropolitan counties in 1979 and elsewhere at the end of 1984. It is quite right that the Secretary of State should try to help along this process by putting what he would call some well-precedented clauses of local Private Acts into this general statute and thereby reducing the number of provisions for which new Private Bills will require to come before the House.
However, a slight cloud of suspicion crosses my horizon. Are local councils—apart from those already lucky enough to have these sorts of powers in their own Private Acts—getting powers they might not be given if they had to come to Parliament for them individually? There is sometimes good reason for saying to an enthusiastic council that it must prove its case before Parliament and satisfy us of its need for certain powers.
I wonder why a district council in the West Midlands should have power to make byelaws in respect of bathing and boating to an area within 1,000 metres seaward of low water mark? That seems to be stretching powers unnecessarily far. Why should an urban district have power to provide places at which food, drink and tobacco may be bought as well as power to provide dance studios, riding schools or water ski-ing without running the gauntlet of objection from those who provide such facilities and services in a local authority's area?
Perhaps we ought to be dealing with this subject in exactly the reverse manner. Perhaps we ought to consider which Private Act powers are still necessary for the authorities which have them, rather than extending them to all local authorities. Why should the Inner London Education Authority have the power of compulsory purchase for the purpose of providing golf courses or bowling greens, or even for selling drink and tobacco? Why should so many of the functions be given in duplication to district councils and county councils, and even to parish councils? There has been complaint from time to time that in the course of local government reorganisation we gave the powers to all authorities to use as they chose and that this resulted in duplication. The Bill does not make much distinction between the powers of district councils, county councils and parish councils.
I am not unaware of Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, which gives wide powers to all local authorities. During the preparation for the reorganisation of local government there was considerable discussion upon whether local authorities should in future be given full powers of government, except for powers reserved by statute for central Government or, on the other hand, whether they should retain the traditional rôle of local authorities and have only the powers given to them by statute. The latter principle won the day and local authorities in future, as in the past, have to justify any activity, power or function by pointing to a statutory authority for it.
Forty years earlier there had been decided the case of the Attorney-General v. Smethwick Corporation. The Smeth-wick Corporation set up its own printing works and duplicating machines, rather as we have done on the Interview Floor. That was found to be within the incidental powers of local authorities. Department of the Environment Circular 121/72 explains:
the Local Government Act 1972 includes a new provision which puts beyond doubt that local authorities have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions, even if they have no specific statutory power for that action.
Section 111(3) provides:

A local authority shall not by virtue of this section raise money, whether by means of rates, precepts or borrowing, or lend money except in accordance with the enactments relating to those matters respectively
In that connection we shall have to look carefully at the innovation in Clause 23 which introduces a new Section 17(3) into the Local Government Act 1972, giving local authorities the power to make a rate or issue a precept for capital funds and repairs and renewals funds. Those funds up to the present have been financed by capital borrowings and not by rate or precept.
Up to this stage I have not said anything controversial or raised any political issues between Conservatives and Socialists or between Opposition and Government. I have raised legal issues but not party political issues. When we come to the methods of exercising these powers by local government and the way the work is done, we encounter party political differences.
Where does one draw the line between carrying out these functions, on the one hand, by direct employees of the council and, on the other, by arranging for the functions to be performed by another under contract? When local government expenditure is taking more and more of our gross national product, it is essential to take a firm grip of the problem and formulate a clear policy. Should the local councils carry out by direct labour all their house building, all their road building, road maintenance, all their cultural, sporting and amenity building, all their refuse collection and refuse disposal, all their computer operations, libraries, swimming baths, parks and gardens, or could many of those items be done better under contract?
Some local authorities make a success of direct labour. The majority do not—if success is measured financially in speed of operation, or in the economic use of manpower. Even where direct labour appears to be successful, it causes such a dislocation of the local economy that it just is not worth it. It is bound to deprive rate-paying and tax-paying undertakings in commerce and industry of the earnings out of which Government revenue is derived.
Let us, for example, look at the provisions of the Bill, taking the smallest


function in Clause 1, the power of a local authority to
erect flagpoles, pylons and other structures on any highway in its area for the purpose of displaying decorations.
There are private undertakings which do that work. Yet I am sure that once we give councils the power to do this work, many will put their own roadmen, builders and carpenters on to the job, employing clerks to look at the day sheets and time sheets and to calculate wage packets, insurance, PAYE and superannuation for each workman. They will employ buyers to purchase materials for making flagpoles and pylons, accountants to account for the VAT and perhaps even a chief decorations display officer to run the demonstrations department of the council.
The same might apply to the district heating clauses—Clauses 10 and 11—and to Clause 18, which deals with the provision of places of entertainment. These are all matters in respect of which, instead of employing an operational staff both in the field and in the office, the local authority staff could be reduced to a small management team letting out the work on contract.
In this connection the last paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum is farcical. It states:
The Bill will have no direct effect on either central or local government staff.
The Secretary of State must be kidding. The Bill contains provisions for licensing scaffolding, controlling mortar mixing on the highway, licensing the digging of holes and the making of mounds in the road, the removal of unauthorised graffiti, the revocation and amendment of new street orders, the enormous undertaking of direct heating taking over the powers of the CEGB and the electricity boards, new byelaws over local territorial waters, extensive powers of building and manning places of entertainment, discovering and felling dangerous trees and authorising persons to do so and fixing times and charges for local fairs and markets. In face of all that we are solemnly told that the Bill will have no direct effect on central or local government staff.
I know that many councils already have these powers and do these things, but many have not and do not. What

excuse has the Secretary of State for saying that the Bill will have no effect on staff? That must be his little joke. In short, he says "Never mind about these chaps who will be given their licensing empires and their consents-issuing bureaux, each with a score of temporary agency typists. We shall save the time of assistant solicitors in a few council offices who would otherwise spend a few hours each year instructing parliamentary agents to put certain clauses in a Private Bill." The Explanatory Memorandum adds:
It should have indirectly a beneficial effect on local authority manpower by removing these clauses from the field of future local legislation.
There will be a few hours saved each year. We shall all look forward eagerly to this important reduction in local authority staff. There will also be a reduction in expenditure, because the paragraph which appears immediately above says:
An indirect financial benefit will result from the reduction in the size of local authority private Bills.
I suspect that instead we shall hear the usual bleat from local authorities that they must have more money and more staff because Parliament has landed them with more and not less work. Indeed, all the paragraphs under the headings, "Financial Effects of the Bill" seem to be just a big joke. The first paragraph says:
Since all the powers are discretionary the Bill will place no financial obligations on local authorities or the Secretary of State.
Surely the Secretary of State realises that when a local authority is given the power to do something, there will be pressure upon it to do it. A simple example arises from Clause 5. How will a council with the power to attack the writers on the wall resist the demands of its electorate to wash off "Wogs must go", "Shoot the Shah", or some political party "Out"? Undoubtedly, in all these cases where a local authority has permissive powers it is forced to use them.
However, we are assured that expenditure will be minimal—to provide under Clause 18 sports centres; swimming pools; skating rinks; tennis, squash and badminton courts; bowling centres; dance studios; riding schools; cycle tracks; golf courses; camp sites; facilities for gliding, boating, water ski-ing and


fishing; premises for athletic, social and recreational clubs; facilities for parking spaces, food, drink and tobacco.
This power goes far beyond the powers given to local authorities by Section 4 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937, which I gather Clause 18 is intended to replace. The only powers given previously were to provide gymnasiums, playing fields, holiday camps, camping and clubs with athletic, social, or educational objects. I grant the Minister that the Explanatory Memorandum graciously acknowledges that in the case of district heating the expenditure might not be minimal. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has said, I can envisage the birth of the most enormous white elephants in district heating—bigger than the ski-slope at Kirby—conceived under the permissive provisions of Clauses 10 and 11.
I am not anamoured of the monopolistic powers of the nationalised electricity industry. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East will have to work very hard on me to convince me that we shall do better by indiscriminate local take-overs by councils inexperienced in and ill-equipped for that function, unless, of course, they take on a massive staff to do it. I was impressed by my hon. Friend's observation that elsewhere in the world private enterprise is doing this very efficiently.

Mr. Rost: I was attempting to suggest that basically private enterprise should be involved in these schemes, but that they could be sponsored, or at least authorised, by a democratically elected local authority. That would be preferable to the present monopoly system, over which one has little control.

Mr. Page: I am delighted that my hon. Friend and I are thinking along the same lines and not relying on the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that
Income would be derived from the sale of heat".
By how much a year does the taxpayer subsidise the nationalised electricity industry? If it is to be done by the ratepayer, I pity him.
I turn to Clause 26 which says:
Any power to execute works which is conferred on a local authority by any enactment

may, unless the contrary intention appears in that or any other enactment, be exercised outside as well as inside the area of the authority.
Having traced this back to its origin, which I think I am right in saying is Section 274 of Public Health Act 1936, I find that this clause is nothing like its parent. The 1936 Act certainly gave a power for one local authority to carry out public health functions in another authority's area. That power has been used for the laying of sewers and so on. However, there has been nothing as wide as the present Clause 26. Certainly in Committee we shall ask what that means and even at this stage I ask the Minister what it means.
In my view it is a recipe for civil war. Can Leeds exercise compulsory purchase powers in Bradford? Can Liverpool install district heating in Manchester? Can Newcastle build a new sports stadium in Gateshead? Can Scunthorpe build a ski-slope in Scarborough? We want to know a great deal more about the intentions of Clause 26.
I have no desire to reduce the functions common to all local authorities. However, I do not see any need at present to increase those functions and thereby to increase the level of local expenditure. We can safely increase the discretion and flexibility of local authorities within the limits of their present functions. However, rather than seeking to extend those limits, we should be defining them with more precision so that they do not bulge more and more as a result of a local council's enthusiasm for more and more power for the council or the Government's imposition of more and more functions on local authorities.

5.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): When my hon. Friend introduced the Bill, he said that it consisted entirely of well-precedented matters and non-controversial clauses When the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) began his speech, I thought how wise and right my hon. Friend had been. However, as the debate wore on I took the view that, although we might get away with it on a non-controversial basis tonight, we should not retain that degree


of unanimity when we reached Committee. In fact, when the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said he was "cooing seductively" he could have fooled me. His criticisms were quite extensive and in some instances went somewhat beyond the actual Bill. Certainly they were such as to make it inevitable that we shall have an interesting, if somewhat controversial, Committee stage.
I emphasise that in the main the clauses were included alter consultation with local authorities. I propose to take up the first matter raised by the hon. Member for Ashford, who spoke about the position of the National Association of Local Councils concerning consultation. The hon. Gentleman said that the Association was not included in the consultations with associations representing authorities with powers to promote legislation. That is true.
However, I am advised that the Association has been consulted separately about some of the provisions of the Bill. For example, the Government propose to introduce an amendment to meet a specific point which has been made on Clause 25. The Association has also been consulted about the possibility of legislation specifically tailored to the needs of parish and community councils. In other words, the Association was not included in the original consultation processes, but it has not been overlooked.
The debate has shown that local authorities, local authority associations, and hon. Members are interested in the Bill. That is inevitable as the Bill covers a wide range of local government matters. The Bill demonstrates how private legislation reaches into every nook and corner of local authority activity and hence affects the daily lives of many people.
First, I should like to take up some of the observations about the rationalisation of local law. I should emphasise that the Bill is only part of a continuing process of securing in public legislation those ancillary powers which local authorities need to enable them to work smoothly and effectively. For instance, in the last two Sessions a couple of dozen local Act provisions have been incorporated in legislation on specific functions. That process will continue. Indeed, further

consultations with the local authority associations are in progress.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the text of the Bill. I am sure that many of those matters will be referred to time and again in Committee.
The hon. Member for Ashford, among others, referred to Clauses 1 and 18 and, in particular, to the important general power in Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. That is the power enabling local authorities to take incidental actions for the purposes of their main functions. That has been taken into account in the preparation of the Bill. Again, I am sure that we shall come back to that topic in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Crosby and other hon. Members referred to Clause 26. Some did so in more critical terms than others. That clause will certainly be discussed in detail in Committee. I am advised that it does not give any new powers to work for other people.
We had a useful contribution on energy and energy conservation by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). I have no wish to be critical of anything we said about the need to conserve energy and to use energy resources wisely. The hon. Gentleman welcomed Clauses 10 and 11. Those clauses will enable local authorities to produce electricity in the course of producing heat. The main function is the production of heat, not electricity, on an economic basis. Local authorities will not set themselves up as alternative suppliers of electricity. If they generate electricity they will sell it to the Central Electricity Generating Board.
The hon. Gentleman made the interesting suggestion of extending these powers to private enterprise. I am not sure whether an amendment on those lines would be approriate. This is a local government Bill which gives powers only to local authorities.

Mr. Rost: My point was that it was not necessary for local authorities to produce heat and electricity. It is already going to waste in the power stations.

Mr. Jones: I was dealing specifically with how the clauses would operate and indicating that the extension of such a power could not be included in a Bill specifically dealing with the provision of powers for local authorities.
I cannot challenge the hon. Gentleman's assertion about waste heat from power stations, because I am not an expert. The Bill will enable local authorities to buy as well as to produce heat. Therefore, it could be of some help. I do not put it any higher than that. I am sure that we shall explore that topic in depth in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Crosby and other hon. Members referred to Clause 18. The number of clauses referred to by hon. Members has been somewhat limited. That suggests that perhaps not all the Bill will be contentious. Most of the powers in Clause 18 could be exercised under the broader and vaguer wording of Section 4 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. We are seeking to use virtually the same powers but in a more reasonable form.
Some hon. Members suggested other matters which ought to be included in the Bill. Whereas some have said that there is too much in the Bill and that they would want to knock little pieces out, I think that the majority would like to add powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) suggested the inclusion of a provision giving power to deal with the law on hackney carriages. The Home Department, which has responsibility for that subject, holds the view that it is likely to prove controversial in several respects, but it intends to prepare a Bill embodying new codes of control for both hackney carriages and private hire cars. A consultative document is being prepared for circulation to the bodies representing the various trade interests, local authority associations, enforcement authorities and other Government Departments.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend aware that something almost precisely like that was said at least four years ago? Could he put some vigour behind the Home Department to make progress?

Mr. Speed: I endorse that—not only four years ago but 14 years ago. Will the Minister put a megaton stick of dynamite behind the Home Department? Everybody, except apparently the Home Department, knows the difficulties in this matter. It is about time that officials in

the Home Department pulled their fingers out.

Mr. Jones: I am glad that I do not have to defend the actions of other Departments on all occasions. I confess that I do not know with any degree of certainty what the Home Department said four years ago, and I certainly could not remember what was said 14 years ago.
It is obvious from the contributions which have been made that this kind of provision is bound to be controversial. Its controversial nature led us to exclude it. I doubt whether the kind of provision suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields would marry with that suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton, South.

Mr. Michael Morris: We are not arguing across the Chamber,—I think there is a fair degree of unanimity. We are arguing about the lack of industry and enthusiasm with which the Home Office is tackling a common problem throughout the country.

Mr. Jones: When the Bill was being drawn up, it was decided that such matters should be left to specialised legislation because of their controversial character. Far be it from me to suggest that this course be taken, but it is possible to table amendments. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are various methods of making mutual approaches.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to Clause 16 and the power to make byelaws covering private swimming pools to which the public are admitted and for which no charge is made. There is no precedent in existing local Acts to cover the point. As has been made clear, we are seeking to include only those powers for which there are precedents. Although I should not talk about it too much, the hon. Gentleman has a course of action open to him. The more who take that course of action, of course, the longer I am likely to be delayed in Committee.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) referred to the lack of houses in the countryside. I understand the deep feelings of the hon. Gentleman and many others in this respect. It is a problem that will have to be considered within housing legislation. That sort of power is not included in the Bill, as there is no precedent provision.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned vacant properties and suggested that the Bill should give local authorities power to acquire them. I understand that the local authorities already have that power. The hon. Gentleman's point would be met if they chose to exercise them. Perhaps he was suggesting that we should provide powers to compel local authorities to take such action. That would be contrary to the nature of the Bill. We are seeking to provide local authorities with powers which they may choose to operate, depending on their views.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I understand that local authorities have not been able to use the powers that they possess over the past few months. I know that in my own area the district councils have told deputations that they are not allowed to use their powers.

Mr. Jones: Perhaps I should explain that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the specific temporary restrictions which we applied to authorities in Wales during June and July. Those restrictions will be somewhat relaxed in the next few months.
The right hon. Member for Crosby was critical of direct labour. I believe that some of the pictures he drew were somewhat exaggerated. He spoke of all local authorities using all their powers to do everything by direct labour. Surely his own experience leads him to know that the use of the word "all" was somewhat overplaying his case. Even the authorities which have powerful direct labour organisations operate in co-operation with private contractors in most of their activities.
The Government wish to see the maximum possible expansion of direct labour organisations, subject to the constraints on local authority activities. Ministers have already said that we intend to introduce general legislation on the power of direct labour organisations as soon as possible. There is a commitment, but not a commitment within the Bill.
Some hon. Members have made suggestions which might prove to be both well precedented and unlikely to take up much parliamentary time. We shall carefully consider any such suggestions along with the items which the local authority

associations have already submitted. We have no wish to be restrictive, although there must be a limit to the number of items which can be added. If a great many are proposed, we shall have to consider with the associations how best to proceed.
The hon. Member for Northampton. South and others questioned whether we should be giving local authorities the powers that appear in the Bill in view of the general financial restraints on local authorities and on the country generally. I do not claim that they are absolutely essential to the operation of local government, but that is not the point. As has been said, these powers need to be conferred as part of our general strategy for rationalising local law. In fact, they are in tune with the opening words of the hon. Member for Ashford. The hon. Gentleman suggested that within the financial restraints that now apply he would like to extend freedom to local authorities.
I emphasise that the Bill is designed only to give general effect to well-precedented local Act provisions which are unlikely to consume much parliamentary time in debate. We wish the Bill to have a smooth and quick passage so that local authorities which are already-preparing next year's Private Bills will know where they stand. The Bill does not represent the extent of our efforts to give local authorities the general powers they need. The associations are well aware of our efforts in this respect, and together we shall be considering what further action if any should be taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make amendments for England and Wales of provisions of the law which relates to local authorities or highways


and is commonly amended by local Acts, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of that Act and any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Orders of the Day — NUCLEAR SAFETY

6.7 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2663/75 and R/2662/75 and of the importance which the Government attaches to matters of nuclear safety.

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).

Mr. Benn: As you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that you have accepted the amendment, perhaps I might complete the good will by saying that we intend to recommend the House to accept it. I make that declaration so that there is no artificial anxiety hanging over the debate. I greatly welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter in the House as it is the first opportunity I have had since my appointment as Secretary of State for Energy. I understand that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) will be taking part in the debate.
This is an issue to which Parliament will have to give greater attention. I say that with some feeling because since 1966, when I became Minister of Technology, I have had ministerial responsibility on and off for matters of nuclear policy. It is a lonely responsibility in that the decisions that fall to be taken by Ministers involve an understanding, as far as that is possible for laymen, of complicated issues. Although the safety record in nuclear affairs in terms of loss of life, compared to mining or North Sea diving, is a splendid one, the risks with which we are dealing are of a unique kind in the history of mankind in peace-time work.
It is obvious to anyone who follows these matters that the debates now taking place world-wide—in Japan, for obvious reasons, with memories of the 1945 explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in Sweden and in the United States,

where I was last week—indicate that there is an interest in nuclear policy and nuclear safety that now goes beyond people with expertise in the matter and is extending to the whole Community.
For my own part, I think that the only way in which the Government can respond to anxieties of this kind is by adopting policies of the greatest possible openness, disclosing and publishing all the information that Parliament or the people wish to have, and listening most attentively to the debates that then centre round that disclosure. I intend to pursue that policy of openness and public debate. I have sought to do it with the nuclear re-processing contract proposed for Windscale.
Another issue, which is either before the House or will be shortly, is how we should handle problems of disposal of radioactive waste. Today we are discussing a Community interest and rôle in nuclear safety matters. I very greatly welcome the interest of the Community in this, as I do of all other countries, because clearly the question of nuclear safety knows no boundaries and cannot be confined to any one nation or group of nations.
At the Luxembourg Council last June I spoke about the Resolution No. R/681/75 on the technological problems of nuclear safety, on which the two documents are based. I said then, and I repeat now, that
the Community should certainly improve its standards but should do so as quickly and openly as possible.
We should not conceal what we are doing but should try to make it open so that others can join in. This debate will give us an opportunity to further that discussion.
We are fortunate—I mean this very sincerely—in having the view on these documents of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation. I shall try to deal with the points made by the Select Committee, but first perhaps I might briefly explain the documents themselves.
Document No. R/2662/75 is concerned primarily with light-water reactor safety, but it provides for consideration of pressure tube reactors, which include the SGHWR adopted for the next nuclear power station orders in this country.


Document No. R/2663/75 is about fast reactor safety. Both documents are under consideration by Council working groups, and we shall be seeking to introduce any amendments which appear necessary.
The Council resolution on technological problems of nuclear safety was adopted in July of last year. It called on member States, with my very full support, to improve their collaboration on safety matters, with the aim of harmonising safety practices and criteria.
The two proposals we are discussing today follow directly on this resolution. Their titles are perhaps a little misleading. The Commission has referred to them as research and training programmes. This is really a matter more of jargon than anything else. What these proposals are seeking to do is strengthen the secretariat of the Community working parties of national experts who are already engaged on discussions in the areas of light-water reactor safety and fast reactor safety.
The Commission wants five extra people to support each of the working parties, and there is nothing very dramatic in these proposals. There is no suggestion for an increase in the number of working parties. The proposals do not seek to extend the rôle of the Commission or to increase the number of committees and the consequent demands on our technical expertise, and they do not interfere with present arrangements for the safety approval of nuclear installations.
The Commission has undertaken to find the staff required for these programmes from existing resources and not to ask for the creation of supplementary posts. There should, therefore, be no net increase in our existing contribution to the Community's research budget, the staff cost of these programmes, about £50,000 a year, being offset by savings elsewhere.
The object is entirely praiseworthy, because it is intended to relieve the burden on the technical experts on the working parties and thereby to increase their efficiency. Nevertheless, we shall need to be satisfied whether the proposed additions to the staff are right in terms of numbers and types and that the increases in staff will contribute to the greater effectiveness of the expert mem-

bers of the working parties, and hence to the benefit of member States.
Concerning the reservations expressed by the Select Committee, first we do not see Community action as a substitute for, but as an addition to, national action. I emphasise this very strongly. The great increase in nuclear power proposed for the Community by 1985 and onwards demands some Community action, and by 1985 the Community's programme, if it goes ahead, will be very much larger than that of the United Kingdom on its own.
The technical expertise available to the Commission through the working parties is obtained from the national resources of member States. We shall take care, along with other member States, to ensure that it is employed efficiently, and that undue demands which might prejudice effort at national level are not made.
Exchanges of information to seek common ground, as I said at the beginning, with a view to common action are desirable, but there is no suggestion that licensing standards or approvals might be centralised on a Community basis. It would be many years before major proposals for harmonisation or standardisation could be agreed or introduced, and they could not be imposed without the agreement of member States at the Council.
There is some evidence that standardisation of, for example, components could be beneficial to the United Kingdom. That is a matter of a rather different kind. Although our own nuclear programme does not call for light-water reactors, United Kingdom industry has already exported some light-water reactor components, and standardisation could increase our prospects here. This is not so much on safety but more generally as well.
More immediately, the exchange of information on research programmes among member States provides a valuable method of making us all aware of the safety areas being studied within the Community. Benefits include the opportunity for exchanges within individual member States of research information where appropriate.
From information exchanges in the Community committees, it is possible to identify potential duplication of effort


and make member States' research and development programmes complementary where this is practicable. Certainly we in this country have a very great deal of knowledge of nuclear power matters, including nuclear safety matters, stretching back over a period of many years. I think that the Magnox stations were first authorised in 1957. We do not have a monopoly of such knowledge, however, and progress can and will be made in collaboration with other member States. For instance, to take one example, the achievements of France in the development of the fast reactor are comparable with our own. Information on the progress of the United Kingdom and French fast reactor types—the PFR and Phoenix respectively—and on research results has been provided in general terms.
I emphasise—I hope to this extent to be able to allay the fears expressed by the Select Committee—that we use appropriate discretion and caution in the handling of commercial information. But the membership of the appropriate committees has given Community members access to information that would otherwise not have been readily available. There is, of course, close co-ordination within the Community particularly in the fast reactor safety field. This arrangement contributes substantially to the effectiveness of the work of the Euratom working groups.
The Report of the Select Committee refers specifically to the budgetary contribution of member States. The financial contributions of member States to the Community budget are fixed. We think that it would be impracticable to try to vary each contribution as between one project and another and between one State and another and to try to assess the relative national efforts in each case.
On this issue we hope that the cost to the United Kingdom, as I have explained, would be no more than our existing £50,000 a year—a very modest contribution. We cannot sensibly ask for a reallocation of the budget on this tiny item in return for providing expertise. The working parties already exist. We are also providing our expert knowledge. The demands on our own experts' time will not be increased by increasing the secretariat, but the committees on which they serve will, we hope, be able to work

more effectively as a result. We are satisfied that our experts will be able to ensure that we get a worthwhile return for the effort which this country is putting in.
The Select Committee has pointed out quite properly that our power generation programmes do not include the use of light-water reactors. This, of course, is true, but, as all our partners in the Community who have nuclear power employ the light-water reactor, it is in our interests to keep abreast of the technology in this field. It is important to recognise that decisions made in relation to one reactor system will influence the approach to safety on other types. That is the case for approaching the recommendation of the Select Committee in the way that I suggest.
Nuclear safety is an international matter——

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep abreast of all the technicalities of the water reactors, why does he not suggest that we buy one?

Mr. Benn: Far be for me to imply that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), in seeking to reopen a debate about the nuclear reactor system that we adopted, is out of order. But it is one thing to spend £50,000 to keep an eye on safety and another thing to reverse a major decision involving the abandonment of a British reactor and the importation of a foreign one. But that is almost a matter of order rather than a matter of merit. However, I should be happy to go over that ground with the hon. Gentleman on some other occasion if he so wishes.
As I emphasised, nuclear safety is an international matter, and we should be burying our heads in the sand if we were to decide that nuclear safety in the territories of our neighbours and partners was not our concern. Furthermore, our own SGHW reactor, as a water reactor, although it is different in design and concept from the LWR, has some features in common with it, and involvement in considering these aspects must be of benefit to us. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bedford should urge others to buy the steam-generating heavy-water reactor and try to see whether he could contribute his voice to the boosting of


the export possibilities of British equipment as well as indicating that we should buy foreign systems.

Mr. Skeet: We have not got one going yet.

Mr. Benn: Document No. R/2662 in any case envisages the possibility of work on the safety of pressure tube reactors, which includes the steam-generating heavy-water reactor.
I turn to the fast rector, because it is well known that it can use uranium much more efficiently than the commercial reactors at present in use, and it is therefore seen as the means of bridging the gap between the demand for energy and the supply from other sources. I am not pre-empting such decisions as will need to be made later about the fast breeder reactor, but that is its rôle conceptually in the development of nuclear energy.
Detailed consideration of the safety issues involved is a matter of prime importance in which collaboration with our Euratom partners can be of major significance. The United Kingdom and other member States have developed standards for their own reactors. For new systems, however, especially the fast reactor, detailed standards have yet to be fully developed, and the member States will be able to make major contributions to the formulation and acceptance of such Community standards as may be considered and which might be adopted later.
My Department's evidence to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which I asked should be specially published last July, points out the benefits of international collaboration in problems of this kind which spreads the costs and risks, shares experience and might lead to improved production if it is possible to go ahead with it. The House will have noticed that Document No. R/2663 envisages a possible extension of the fast reactor safety programme beyond the five-year period so that, subject to later Council approval, the project might run for a further five years.
The Select Committee also suggests that consideration of these nuclear safety matters might be appropriate on a wider international basis than the Community, and I share this view. The similarity of

interest amongst the developed member States and the general objectives of the Euratom treaty will help us to arrive at a common approach within the Community. But this does not mean that we do not play an active part in the work of international organisations on a much broader plain. There is the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Then there are the NEA and the IEA.
The United Kingdom is represented as a member and is concerned with nuclear safety matters on all these and on other international bodies which speak with authority on nuclear safety. There is nothing exclusive about approaching nuclear safety on a Community basis, and the secretariats of the working parties which we are considering today also take part in the specialised groups of these and other international organisations. In effect, therefore, the secretariats whose staffing we are now considering are a link and provide a means of maximising ideas between the Community working groups and the larger and more diverse international groupings.
I think it is helpful to recognise that the membership and objectives of other international bodies differ as between one and another and also differ from those of the Community. Countries which already have nuclear power predominate in the NEA of the OECD, whereas the International Atomic Energy Agency's membership consisting of United Nations countries contains a good many which at present have no nuclear power facilities. In its turn, the IEA has interests which are not entirely or even mainly in the nuclear field, and in any event France is not a member of the International Energy Agency. So there is undoubtedly some overlap in the work of these organisations. But the secretariats are trying to keep abreast of what is happening. In any event, a certain amount of overlap in a matter as important as this can be helpful, and information can be exchanged to the advantage of each organisation.
There has been very close contact for many years between the European Community and other international bodies. As recently as last December a cooperation agreement was concluded between the European Community and the International Atomic Energy Agency providing for regular consultation and


the exchange of information on nuclear matters of mutual interest.
These proposals, modest as they are, relate to the valuable contributions which international discussions can make in the interests of nuclear safety. The redeployment of Commission staff can help to ensure the most efficient use of available expertise. The United Kingdom has much to gain from continuing to play a full part in this Community activity and as a part of a wider international interest—I think a growing interest—in nuclear safety and its further development.
I conclude, as I began, by drawing attention once more to the great advantage which will flow not only in terms of public understanding but, I hope, in the improvement of safety standards from the public debate which is now developing on nuclear power. To me, it is in a way somewhat surprising that the country which first developed nuclear power should have been so slow in public terms to enter into the debate which is now taking place about it. Looking back from the 1990s, if the House understands me, there are very few people who doubt that, in the generation of electricity, coal and nuclear power will have a very significant part to play. For that reason, it is of crucial importance that all these issues should be fully and publicly debated, wherever possible, before decisions are taken so that the British people, as the issues come forward for decision, will be well acquainted with the nature of those decisions and will not, as has happened sometimes in the past, find that their interest is awakened only after the decisions have been taken.
For these reasons, I recommend the motion and the amendment, when it is moved, to the House.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
'and invites the Government to take account of the observations of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation on these documents'.
The Secretary of State said early in his speech that there was nothing dramatic in these proposals. I do not think that any fair-minded person would disagree with that assessment, but I think that a similar fair-minded person would also

concur with the sentiments that the right hon. Gentleman expressed in his peroration—that these are matters in which public discussion and public examination are absolutely essential and that what might seem to be very modest beginnings can sometimes have very considerable consequences.
Therefore, I want to make only three observation, one of a constitutional character and two points on the contents of the documents themselves. The first observation I want to make is the indebtedness of this House to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) for the fact that this debate is taking place at all, because while the Secretary of State is the acknowledged apostle of open government—I do not for one moment begrudge him his self-sought title—it was the determined pursuit of my right hon. Friend which necessitated these documents being discussed openly on the Floor of the House and, as accident would have it, happily in what I suppose we would call prime parliamentary time.
The more we reflect upon this, the more I hope that there will be a disposition to concur with my right hon. Friend in Early-Day Motion No. 158, in his name, which states:
That this House deplores the inadequacy of consideration of important EEC measures, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House; and calls upon the Government, as a matter of urgency, to improve the timing, form and nature of such debates.
I hope that the events of this evening will be a happy precursor of much more adequate facilities for the House of Commons to debate these affairs, because we must make it quite clear in our own minds that it is for the House of Commons and Parliament generally to establish a satisfactory relationship with whoever shall be representing this country at the Council of Ministers, because that Council in effect will be the law-making body in respect of the Commission.
This House need have no hesitations in seeking to advise, influence and—dare one say it?—instruct, in respect of energy affairs, especially in this matter. Within the context of the European Community, we are not a supplicant nation. We are in a position to have an active and determining rôle. That is not merely the prerogative of the Treasury Bench. It


is the prerogative of Members of this House, to whom the Treasury Bench must eventually answer.
Having dealt with the constitutional point, I turn to the two points of substance which I have selected from the documents. I do not think that anyone examining those documents can have any doubt that the Thirty-Second Report of the House of Lords Committee and the Seventh Report of our own Commons Committee elaborated very considerable reservations about these two documents. They are reservations the validity of which has been underlined by the Secretary of State himself when he said "We are at the beginning of processes which may have very considerable consequences and the public debate cannot begin one moment too soon."
I want to deal with only two points. The first point was to some extent conceded, in a rather generous fashion by the right hon. Gentleman himself—that is, whether the International Atomic Energy Agency might not be the most suitable body to carrying out this form of safety monitoring. We know from the evidence obtained from their Lordships' Report that the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna has a staff of 1,100 and a budget running annually at over £11 million. By contrast, we know that the proposals before us are of immense initial modesty in respect of the additional organisation which will be vested in the Commission. Therefore, one is tempted to ask, with some slight bewilderment, whether this really is the most appropriate way to set about furthering international co-operation in this vital area of nuclear safety.
I cannot but have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), who, when the Under-Secretary was giving evidence to the Scrutiny Committee, put the following question very fairly:
Is it really the best use of our funds and our resources to do this particular thing at the level of the Community rather than in the wider body?
It seemed to me a very fair question—from an impeccable source, perhaps I may say in this debate. The Under-Secretary said:
I think by the simple fact of geography the answer would be yes.

The Under-Secretary will doubtless tell us that he went on to elaborate at some length beyond the facts of geography, but the question, which was placed with devastating simplicity, did not really receive a very reassuring answer. Nothing that I have heard this evening indicates to me that there is any overwhelming necessity to interpose this additional committee.
Indeed, I should like again to refer to the evidence that was offered in their Lordships' Committee by Lord Hinton. In evidence to that Committee, he said:
Surely if the present international bodies are in any way falling short of what is required by an expanding nuclear programme, it would be better to strengthen them, if necessary.
That is evidence from Lord Hinton, a former Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, which in my view constitutes a very formidable contribution which this House would be very unwise to neglect.
Finally, I should like to quote almost a third impeccable source for the restrained scepticism that I am showing, that of Lord O'Hagan, who had been a member of the delegation at Strasbourg in early days. He said:
Yes, but the Commission itselt, you would feel, is rather stretched so tar as technical expertise is concerned?
In reply to that, the Under-Secretary said:
Yes, but it has a lot to draw from.
It seems to me that there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made, as was made by both the Scrutiny Committee of our House and by their Lordships, for the proposition that perhaps the wider international agency would be the more appropriate body for this kind of work.
However, I turn now to the second point, which is possibly of more substance. I know not; I do not seek to balance a judgment between the two. Although the numbers involved are immensely small and the funds quite extraordinarily modest—and one says this a week after the publication of our domestic Public Expenditure White Paper, so we have something against which to gauge these things—there is always the feeling—I have to quote a French proverb which I must translate into English for the purposes of order—that it is only the first step that counts. The budget, for all its modesty, acknowledges that it will double


between 1976 and 1980, and one has an instinct that it is a pretty good idea of its future trend line, until some super-axe is wielded in an area of public spending where hitherto the axe has not been noticeably wielded. However, I leave that point because the sums involved are extremely modest and I should not wish for one moment to pretend otherwise.
The Scrutiny Committee observed—the Secretary of State referred to this—that Document No. R/2662/75
gives initial priority to aspects concerning light water reactors, which are not a feature of United Kingdom future plans.
It is at this point in our debate that I raise a question which is wholly legitimate to raise now, namely, whether the harmonisation of safety becomes a Trojan horse for a standardised European nuclear industry. We cannot avoid that question. It is a question which will be evident in the minds of many outside the House who follow these matters closely. I suspect that they will be grateful that that question has been asked.
I am advised that the Secretary of State is a politician with the most formidable characteristics. I am told that he is an extremist. I put all those whispers to one side. I have only one charge against him this evening, and that is innocence. Innocence, perhaps, could be the most serious of all in matters such as this. I worry for his virtue when he goes across the sea. I suspect that he has just returned from a North American trip where he has been telling his audiences in Washington and elsewhere that participation in the North Sea is something very different from what a number of his hon. Friends below the Gangway had supposed. I am anxious to erase from him any traces of innocence by the processes of this debate.

Mr. Skeet: Would it not be advisable for the Secretary of State to make in the United Kingdom the same speech as he made in the United States?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, but if he made it in this debate it would be ruled out of order.
I return to Annex III of Document No. R/2662/75, which states:
Whereas, by aligning safety requirements, the national authorities responsible for nuclear safety and constructors and energy producers will be able to benefit from a harmonized

approach to the problem at Community level.
It is noteworthy that their Lordships in their examination of the document and of the evidence they took from the Under-Secretary of State concluded:
The Commission argue that the present tendency for Member States' safety techniques to develop separately may result both in varying levels of safety and in new non-tariff barriers.
They continued:
Progressive 'standardisation' of design, manufacturing procedures, safety standards and quality control are therefore needed which should increase the nuclear industry's profitability and perhaps lead to better relations with the public in the Community as well as with countries outside.
It will not be lost on hon. Members that there is reference there to manufacturing procedures. The House would be well advised to consider some of the implications of these proposals when they are applied against the real world context of nuclear design and manufacture throughout the European Community.
I can do no better than to quote again from an impeccably dispassionate source, namely, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). He may recollect speaking in a debate in this House on Community energy policy last year. My quotation will be of some length, but that is merely my tribute to the hon. Gentleman. He said:
The Americans have more or less a monopoly, direct or under licence, of the European market with their light-water reactor. The British decision to use the heavy-water technique backed by the considerable resources of Canada means that we should be urging our partners in the EEC to take development of the British heavy-water reactor as seriously as they take the American version. We do not want to cause unnecessary fear, but there are much greater risks with LWRs than with other types.
The hon. Gentleman concluded:
Therefore the argument for diversity of reactor type in Europe as elsewhere is a very strong one, and it is the business of British Ministers to urge the adoption of this approach within the EEC.—[Official Report, 11th February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 263.]
I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's assent, because early in the speech he described himself as a "low-profile European". We have only to ask ourselves this question: to what extent may the philosophy of diversity clash with the philosophy of harmonisation particularly where the Commission, in the language of


the Under-Secretary of State, is to be a catalyst, presumably with a view to producing a much wider degree of uniformity than might otherwise exist?
We appreciate the remarks which the Secretary of Slate made initially about the great importance that the public attach to nuclear safety. I am sure that when he made those remarks he was conscious of their Lordships' conclusion after examining the documents. I quote:
Standardisation generally, as proposed by the Commission, must imply that decisions will be taken centrally and, therefore, by an agency remote from the public affected.
In making that judgment, their Lordships were drawing upon the evidence submitted by Dr. N. L. Franklin of the Nuclear Power Company Limited. In the light of that, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me that decisions must be seen to be taken by authorities which are as close as possible to the public affected. Perhaps most important of all, we know that shortly he will be going to the Council of Ministers to do battle—that is a reality—to ensure that the Joint European Torus is sited at Culham and not at Ispra. On this occasion we ask him not to do battle in the sense that there will be gore all over the floor and the ceiling at the Council of Ministers.
We know that the issue at stake is not of that magnitude, but there are a number of pertinent questions that this House in all charity and amicability should put to the Secretary of State. The very fact that there will be no Division this evening underlines the constructive way that this debate is being handled. The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself again underlines that this is a House of Commons occasion.
However, three questions must be asked. First, is this particular pursuit of harmonisation necessary or are there not other agencies which provide a thoroughly adequate alternative? Secondly, is this modest expenditure, however it is shunted around within the accounts, justified, and, would it have provided the same kind of scrutiny as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been carrying out on other sectors of the Government's domestic programme? I

have not sought to translate the sums into the number of nursery schools—that is the kind of petty political point that I shall put on one side. The scrutiny of public spending by the Community must at least in part proceed from this House, or at the end of the day it will be this House which will have to vote a great deal of taxation that will go into the general Community fund.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No, we do not vote it.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make his own contribution to the debate, but perhaps he will allow me to come to my peroration.
Third, there is the fear which I have expressed that nuclear standardisation could be a hidden danger which would imperil our own distinctive nuclear technology. This Parliament has an obligation to perceive and to proclaim the national interest, and to ensure that the Minister secures those interests within the Community of nation States. The work of the Select Committees in this instance has shown that Parliament can do this task in detail and with a dispassionate analysis and comment. It is now for the Secretary of State to match their advice with his action in the Council of Ministers.

6.51 p.m.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Like other hon. Members present, I have a nuclear installation in my constituency. In my case it is the Windscale and Calder Hall plant, possibly the most sensitive nuclear installation in the United Kingdom.
I agree with the Secretary of State about the great and developing public concern about the nuclear industry and the need for a more open and informed debate of the issues. I subscribe to that view. It is in the best interests of the industry itself that the debate should develop in such a way. However, I add one word of caution. My right hon. Friend should distinguish between a genuine desire to debate the issue and the use of those techniques to oppose any development of the industry. There is a fair amount of that going on.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss these Community problems and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for


Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). The hon. Gentleman spoke about every nuclear issue except disarmament in his wide-ranging and typically idiosyncratic speech. If I were in any doubt about whether I should be ruled out of order in some of the remarks that I want to make, I am no longer in doubt after his speech.

Mr. Speaker: Do not be too sure.

Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps that reflects the different view which the Chair takes of Back Benchers and Front Benchers.
I welcome these documents as I do any further attempt at co-operation which will bring added knowledge in nuclear safety. They are modest documents, both in scope and in intent. I hope that other hon. Members too will have noted that in each case the explanatory memorandum says that there will be no impact on United Kingdom law. This is very important. If, as the hon. Member for Oswestry was perhaps hinting, the suggestion had been that our own Nuclear Installations Inspectorate should be downgraded, that would have been a matter for grave concern, probably for outright opposition. I should not have subscribed to it and I am pleased to know that it will not happen.
It was of paramount importance that our inspectorate was not prepared to license light-water reactors in the United Kingdom at least until there had been a thorough study of the designs, which was so important in the debate and the subsequent decision about reactor choice. It is important for us not only to build upon but to maintain the independence of our inspectorate under the Health and Safety Commission because of the tremendous knowledge we have developed in safety matters.
There has been some discussion also about whether harmonisation of safety rules and standards would somehow lead to harmonisation of the industry as a whole in Europe. It is almost too late for that. It is certainly too late for the most part for the development of nuclear fission reactors. We have gone our own way with gas-cooled technology and we are still going our own way in Europe—although we have co-operated with the Canadians—in terms of steam-generating reactors. I should have thought that it was impossible now for the European

industry to be harmonised in the development of fission reactors.
Harmonisation would be possible with fast-breeder reactors. It is well known within the industry and outside, in politics, that the French and the Germans in the recent past made approaches to us about developing joint programmes of work on fast breeders. I am disappointed that we have not been able to respond. Participation in that kind of work is surely a principal argument for membership of the EEC. If we cannot cooperate in the Community—I too speak as a low-profile European—on this kind of expensive high technology, there is little point in trying to co-operate within the EEC on energy matters at all. Far from not wanting some joint approach in that area, I should welcome it.
It is important, particularly with fast breeders, for us to decide in the not-too-distant future about the line we should adopt in the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the Government could soon be announcing their intention to order a commercial fast-breeder reactor so that those industries associated with the construction could order their developmental work accordingly. If, under European co-operation, we can learn from the French or Germans about the safety of this kind of reactor, so much the better. It is a matter of record now that a very modest outlay is involved. If we could gain in safety knowledge, the expenditure would be more than justified.
There have been one or two references to what the Select Committee said about this kind of co-operation. I should have thought that most, if not all, of the literature here is published in any event. The references to commercial information are a separate matter. Obviously that is not published, and there is no reason why the full details of commercial information should be made available in the exchange of ideas about safety. Therefore, although one recognises the need for commercial security, that is not a major objection to cooperation.
I hope that the House, in taking note of these documents, will ratify the Government's decision to co-operate within the EEC on matters of nuclear safety. Even allowing for our participation in other international agencies which are


much more important, much more able, much better financed and much better served technically and scientifically, there is nothing to be lost by this sort of cooperation. I wholeheartedly support the idea.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: I am grateful for the opportunity of contributing to this debate. I wish first to speak on behalf of the Select Committee which considered these matters and benefited from the advice of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. The Committee realised that the proposals put to the Community were in themselves relatively modest. The Committee did not suggest that the instruments were of earth-shattering importance, but the issue the Committee had in mind was of great importance. Even if one believes that the minimal programme of the Community for the displacement of imported energy is being realised, the weight of the programme depending on the development of nuclear electricity is formidable.
The Commission has put forward proposals for an optimum programme to try to reach a position where no less than 40 per cent. of the total energy needs of the Community would be found indigenously by 1985, and it is hoped that by that stage 50 per cent. of needs would be so secured. The prospects of doing so are doubtful, but if the lower level were to be attained, the impact on the growth of the nuclear industry would be phenomenal, indeed. The proposals, modest though they are, are related to what must be an immense, growing activity industrially and financially in the next decade. The Select Committee, partly for that reason, thought that these matters were of the utmost importance. Because they involve research intentions in terms of safety of installations, they are of prime importance to all people in the Community.
Nuclear safety is not confined by national frontiers. There are problems of a major character that transcend national frontiers. Therefore, it is unreal to imagine that we can conduct a nationalist programme of nuclear safety which would not prove to be safety in a real sense.
The Select Committee's task is not to pass opinions about the validity of proposals by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. It is to seek to draw the attention of the House to what seems important in those proposals and, when it has reservations, to express them because it feels that hitherto there may not have been an adequate degree of exposure in the House of the issues concerned. Therefore, I wish to underline to the Secretary of State for Energy in view of his remarks today that there is no question of the Scrutiny Committee having passed judgment on these instruments. The Committee is incapable of doing so, and would not seek to do so.
There are two aspects of these proposals to which I should like to return. Reference has been made to the competence of the Community, particularly in the framework of the instruments, and the scale now proposed to handle what undoubtedly is primarily a question of research. Is the Community competent in these respects? Will it attain competence in the light of these instruments? Will the Community be able to hold up its head in international discussions on research programmes? Will it be able to secure the degree of competence of opposite numbers in any discussions?
I regard those matters as questionable because of the co-ordination of research on this scale. In the light of experience in this country to date, are we entitled to imagine that the Community will be a profound force in nuclear safety matters? I call in doubt whether the modesty of the proposals argues in their favour. Indeed, it may argue substantially against that body being competent and backed by the resources needed to handle such a substantial question.
I ask whether the Community, backed by these instruments, has the organisation to handle the kind of operation with which we are concerning ourselves. I am a believer in the Community and also a believer in the nuclear programme and the compatibility of national programmes. However, I do not share the opinion that we should have a rigid, strait-jacket nuclear system in the Community. It seems to me likely that it will develop in a more flexible way although it also seems that in the longer term that there is a probability of development of the


fast-breeder reactor as the best form of electrical generator in the Community in the latter part of the 1980s and early 1990s. If the Community is to frame a co-ordinated development, it is necessary to make good the indigenous resources of the Community rather than to rely too heavily on continuing imports of the majority of its calories for a research programme to make such a programme a valid force in any discussions.
I turn to a matter which hitherto has not been discussed and which seems to me of substantial importance. It is true that the Secretary of State thought it invalid at this stage to contemplate any variation in the budgetary system. I do not think that that is a practical proposition in regard to these instruments, but I strongly suspect that in the future the developers of the great nuclear systems will regard safety requirements and safety know-how as not insubstantial parts of the technical package. I believe that in future they will be prepared to put questions of safety know-how alongside the questions of major know-how in terms of plant and systems.
One would need to be convinced about the wisdom of pursuing a Community programme by pooling some of the painfully acquired knowledge of the last generation. Let us examine the matter from a commercial point of view. Commerce has managed to possess itself of a degree of expertise in vital areas of generation of power for the future. It has mastered the technical aspects. Should it consider making that knowledge available in terms of a pooling operation when the input of other members may be substantially less? I do not think the budgetary system of the Community enters into the argument. We would be contributing research experience which has been gathered together in this country at great cost, expense and effort. I gather from evidence given to the Select Committee and from discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Energy that this problem has not ranked for consideration in framing the instrument. That appears to be irrational.
I am a good, true European, but there is no need for a good, true European to empty his pockets unnecessarily in favour of those who sit around him. I do not see the object of that. I prefer a straightforward commercial attitude in such

matters when great commercial costs are involved. When I look back on the history of the country in the post-war years I am constantly faced with the extraordinary experience of our developing formidable projects and seeing them develop fatally into marketable projects elsewhere, out of our pockets and with scant return on the cost of our research. I find that unacceptable. Both I and the Select Committee felt that this was a matter which at least warranted an explanation. The Committee did not get one and has not yet got one. I therefore look forward to clarification from the Under-Secretary. The issue was put to him clearly on several occasions during his discussions with the Committee, but no adequate reply has been received.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: It will be within the right hon. Gentleman's memory that when he was Minister for Europe he came before the Select Committee on Science and Technology and adduced as one of his reasons for being pro-European his anticipation of sharing high-cost technological developments of this kind. What he has been saying today seems to contradict that.

Mr. Davies: No.

Dr. Cunningham: Would not the right hon. Gentleman also agree that most of the knowledge on the subject of reactor design is already in the literature on the current types of reactor in use?

Mr. Davies: We are dealing here with nuclear safety. There has been an enormous amount of work undertaken in this country and in others, not least the United States, and it is to be hoped that the degree of knowledge and experience accumulated here will prove a valuable means of exchange for equivalent knowledge available in the United States, certainly growing in the next decade in relation to those reactors in which we specialise, against those in which they specialise. I cannot agree that the desire actively to pursue a co-operative research programme automatically means that one begins by making available the totality of one's knowledge in exchange for a negligible counterpart from others. That is not my view of sharing a research programme. One seeks to start off on a fair basis for the input of information and where that is not practicable because


there is an absence of information in one area, one gives reasonable compensation. That is the basis on which most international co-operation on scientific research has taken place in the past.
That does not imply that I am a renegade European—far from it. But let us at least do it on a rational basis. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assure us that that is precisely what the Government intend to do.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: This matter should have come before the Select Committee on Science and Technology under the admirable chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) rather than before the Scrutiny Committee. We have not yet developed the right technique in this House for handling European matters. On issues such as this that are technical the Select Committee on Science and Technology would have been more appropriate. The study made by the Scrutiny Committee was, however, pertinent and helpful to the debate. I understand that the House of Lords Select Committee has power to consider not merely what is called legislation but also resolutions.
The origin of this matter was a resolution by the Council of Ministers, and the House has been brought in at the second stage of the game when ideally it should have been concerned at an earlier stage. I understand, however, that the terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committee cover only legislation.

Mr. John Davies: That is not so. The Scrutiny Committee has full access to and right to report on all matters which are constituted by documents passing from the Commission to the Council of Ministers, be they instruments of legislation or consultative documents with the resolutions attached. In this case the instrument flows, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, from earlier consultative documents which we draw to the attention of the House as being matters of importance. Although they were part of a non-legislative instrument at the time, they were part of a whole which embraced a forward look at the Community's energy policy.

Mr. Hooley: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I was under the impression that the Scrutiny Committee could concern itself only with secondary legislation. If it can also deal with the decisions of the Council of Ministers, I am reassured. As the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) hinted, we are dealing with a syndrome, a technological juggernaut which seems innocent and straightforward in the early stages but which builds up until one is unable to stop a development in high technology which, for other reasons, one might wish had never been begun. A classic example is Concorde, which arose from a contract between the British and the French signed by the Conservative Government and from which the Labour Government found they could not retract.
In the second of the documents before us there appears to be the implied assumption that the fast-breeder reactor must go ahead and that we must set up coordinating machinery to look at the safety aspects of that project because it will go ahead anyway and be the Community's future source of power. It implies that we need to take the first step and to proceed steadily and inevitably down the road which is being questioned in all parts of the world.
There is a drastic difference between the United Kingdom's energy position and that of the other members of the EEC We have massive reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. We have a potential in tidal power and we may have a potential in wave power if it becomes technologically possible. In addition we have our vast knowledge in the nuclear field. I have the impression that in Brussels in the last 12 to 18 months there has been a panic decision to rush towards nuclear power because it has been felt to be the way to dish OPEC and to deal with the Arabs. This is a violent, almost hysterical reaction to the quadrupling of oil prices, which has led to the decision on the Continent for a programme designed to quadruple in 10 years the output of nuclear energy.
My modest reading on the subject leads me to believe that that is virtually impossible anyway, though this thinking seems to lie behind some of the documents. There seems to be a school of thought in Brussels that if the Community


wants successfully to rush through this panic programme of nuclear power over the next decade it will have to draw on United Kingdom know-how.
We should think very carefully before taking the first step which is implicit in the documents. It has already been pointed out that the light-water reactor system which is being used across the Channel is not the system for which this country has opted. We have gone for the SGHWR instead. It has also been pointed out that there are already high-powered international bodies which are perfectly adequate for exchanging information and resources between nations. For example, there are the International Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency. I understand that there is also a Nuclear Energy Agency which is a subordinate body of OECD. Within such bodies are available the experience and resources of countries such as France, Germany and Italy as well as the United Kingdom and the United States.
We must remember that the international exchange of knowledge and experience may well be helpful and constructive but can sometimes be negative and flash a few warning lights. It seems to me that the warning lights are flashing in the United States, where both the economics and the safety aspects of nuclear power are becoming the subject of acute controversy. We should be unwise to take no notice of those controversies and some of the things which highly expert people in the United States are beginning to say. It would be unwise to join a narrower grouping in Western Europe to deal with such matters as the safety of nuclear installations when there is vast experience elsewhere and when we already have the three bodies I have mentioned, which have great resources and where, to the best of my knowledge, no special limitations are placed on the exchange of information.
To underline my points about the controversey in the United States, I shall quote from a report in the Financial Times of 19th February, in which David Bell says:
Three nuclear scientists who earlier this months resigned their jobs with General Electric of the U.S. told a Congressional committee to-day that many of the nation's atomic power plants 'do not meet Federal safety standards and should be shut down.'.…

Apart from the three GE scientists, an official with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation's nuclear installations, has also resigned.…
Both environmentalists and the industry are … waiting to see the result of a referendum in California in June 8 which could severely restrict the freedom of operation of companies seeking to build nuclear plants in the state.
One can infer too much or too little from those straws in the wind, but if a State the size of California, with roughly the population of the United Kingdom, considers that the safety of nuclear installations is so important that the matter should go to a referendum, somebody at any rate thinks that it is a question on which there should be serious debate and that it is a cause for concern.
I come to Document No. R/2663, which deals particularly with the fast-breeder reactors. It is here that I am most afraid of the first step which has been mentioned and of the technological juggernaut syndrome of which I spoke. The covering note to the document, kindly produced by the Department of Energy suggests that the long-term objective is to ensure the commercial introduction of fast-breeder reactors on a Community basis. In other words, the document envisages the beginning of a process of co-ordination of information, certainly on safety—an innocent topic to begin with—which will gradually, perhaps almost imperceptibly, lead us down the road to a Community system of nuclear reactors and, what is worse, a system about which there is considerable public controversy in this country and elsewhere.
To substantiate what I have said about controversy, I wish to read from a letter from Sir Brian Flowers, FRS, Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the subject of the fast-breeder reactors. In that letter dated 14th November 1975, he says:
we are not yet persuaded that the energy needs of the UK in the next 30–50 years (bearing in mind the tremendous difficulties and uncertainties in making such projections) are such as unavoidably to require the deployment of the FBRs of on a massive scale. … At present the FBR raises serious fundamental difficulties. There are the dangers associated with the management of highly radioactive waste. There are unresolved problems of the stability of the reactor itself (which appears in important respects to be qualitatively different from the stability of a thermal reactor). There are the hazards associated with the need to process large amounts of plutonium, and the


possibility of sabotage or theft, especially during transport.
Sir Brian says that if a demonstration station is set up
It should not be viewed as a commercially competitive power station. The demonstration station should be remotely sited; it should have its own fuel reprocessing and fabrication plant on site in order to remove the security risks of the shipment of plutonium; it should be provided with every means of protection, including both physical devices and an armed security force".
The critical point in the letter is:
We are, however, concerned that a massive investment of money and technological effort in a large-scale demonstration of the FBR system might make the ultimate choice of a fast reactor programme seem inevitable.
In other words, we must proceed with immense caution in this matter or we shall find ourselves going steadily down the Concorde path, finding that we have neither the political will not the economic sense to turn back, even though it is obvious that we are getting into an economic and technical quagmire.
That kind of attitude is not confined to this country. I have already referred to experience in the United States, and I shall quote from the International Herald Tribune of 16th February, which states that the possibility of a nuclear explosion in experimental reactors,
a source of power that the Ford administration and most US nuclear officials feel is essential to the continued growth of nuclear energy, was contained in a report written March 13 by Stephen H. Hanauer, one of the most senior technical experts on the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Hanauer states:
This would be nothing like an atomic bomb but would involve a vast release of energy … such an accident, however, most agreed, could lead to the breaching of the reactor's containment capacity and to the injection into the atmosphere of vaporised plutonium. A further concern was that liquefied plutonium might somehow reach underground sources of drinking water.
One does not have to accept the views of Sir Brian Flowers, of Mr. Hanauer or of other senior nuclear scientists, but the fact that these views are expressed by people of this standing, causing an immense public debate which is developing in the United States—and, I suspect, will develop in this country—should cause this House to pause before agreeing to modest expenditures of £50,000 on setting

up co-ordinating committees whose end, the documents says, is the long-term objective to secure the commercial introduction of fast-breeder reactors.
Safety is not the only consideration. There are questions of radiation protection, the transport of nuclear materials and the danger of terrorism—which may seem remote, although I understand that there have been terrorist incidents in Germany and in France, so that the matter cannot be entirely ignored. There is the question of the management of radioactive waste and the problem of reprocessing.
On this matter of reprocessing I want to draw attention to what seems to me to be a slightly less than frank attitude on the part of the BNFL. In a document which the BNFL published on 10th November last year—presumably some sort of PR hand-out—it is stated:
Reprocessing is a well-established technology based on chemical treatment. The objective is to recover the commercially valuable uranium and plutonium …".
I repeat:
Reprocessing is a well-established technology".
A layman like myself might come to the conclusion that, while it may be complicated, we can control it and it is nothing to get excited about. But, oddly enough, only four days before that document was published, on 6th November 1975, Sir John Hill, the man who inherited the mantle of Sir William Penney, who was Chairman of British Nuclear Fuels, and who knows as much about this technology as any man in the United Kingdom, said this about reprocessing in the Cockcroft lecture, reported in the journal Atom in January 1976:
To turn now to reprocessing, I think it is fair to say that processing highly irradiated fuel from commercial power stations is very much more difficult than anyone imagined ten years ago. At that time all the countries that had been undertaking reprocessing thought that they understood what was required and apart perhaps from finding better ways of chopping the fuel prior to dissolution all that was required was to build larger plants. It is not like that at all… The blowback incident at Windscale just over two years ago was due in part to our not appreciating all the differences in processing more highly irradiated fuel.
He then went on to talk about certain technical details concerning ruthenium,


rhodium, technetium agglomerate particles and so on, which I confess are over my head.
It is quite clear from what Sir John Hill was saying that
the combination of the much higher activity levels, a more difficult and less homogeneous material to process and, above all, increasingly strict effluent and environmental limitations have combined to make life very difficult for the reprocessor.
On the economic side, the cost
will be very much higher than was thought a few years ago. At today's uranium prices the value of the recovered fuel will not cover the cost of reprocessing.
I am not in a position to judge between the BNFL Press hand-out and Sir John Hill, but, from my reading of that extract from his speech, it means that this reprocessing, which is part of the fast-breeder system, is far more complex than some people have given us to imagine, and certainly far more complex than the publicity boys of BNFL want us to imagine. To that extent, I think that more discussion and more public debate are required on this matter.
I think it is right that we should spend a lot of time on this issue. Nuclear safety is becoming more and more a sensitive topic in the public mind. What is going on in the United States makes it clear that there are differences of opinion and different schools of thought about safety, about economics and about the techniques of nuclear power. That does not mean that we must abandon the idea or that we do not wish to pursue this or that system, but it does mean that we need to maintain a very rigorous control over what we are doing in this country and take no steps that would appear to downgrade or modify that control.
Secondly, it would be much better for this country to pursue the already well-established powerful international cooperation among the genuine international agencies rather than go wandering down the path to a rosy little coterie in Brussels.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. A.G.F. Hall-Davis: I welcome this debate and I particularly welcome the terms in which the Government have drawn the motion, because I am interested in this subject from a constituency and safety point of view.
When I heard that we were to debate the two EEC documents, I could see myself engaged in one of those rather undignified games of hide and seek, trying to keep within the bounds of order while making my case. The motion, I am glad to see, refers to
the importance which the Government attaches to matters of nuclear safety
and I can assure the Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see in his place, that my constituents certainly attach great importance to matters of nuclear safety.
We have in Heysham an AGR nuclear generating station at what I think, in relative terms, one would call an advanced stage of construction. As the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), to whom I listened with interest, knows, our constituencies adjoin and the northern part of my constituency is not very far removed from the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Windscale.
The Secretary of State said that he was surprised that the country had been so slow in developing public debate. I am not surprised. I shoulder my modest share of responsibility for the fact, because we have given far too little of what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) called prime parliamentary time to this issue. I am therefore particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and the Select Committee on Science and Technology who have batted on behalf of the whole House of Commons over the years to an extent that I have followed with great interest and appreciation. However, by the very nature of our proceedings, they could not make quite the same general impact as would proceedings on the Floor of the House.
My assessment of the bewilderment—I do not think that that is too strong a word—of the general public on this question of nuclear safety is that if the explanations have not been confused, they have been far too fragmented when the Government and Government Departments have come to deal with the question of safeguards for those who may be affected by our nuclear programme. The Secretary of State also said that the United Kingdom and other EEC countries had developed satisfactory standards for existing systems, and he mentioned


our long experience in these matters, going back to the 1950s. Yet my constituents do not know where to find a comprehensive explanation of how these safety systems and checks are operated.
There are some elementary questions on nuclear safety which they want answered in simple, layman's terms and in a comprehensive document. Among their questions are how and by whom safety factors in reactor design are assessed. I know that I am speaking in the presence of hon. Members who know these things very well, but I can assure them that the general public do not know much about what is familiar ground to those hon. Members.
How have successive Secretaries of State assessed safety factors in taking decisions on reactor siting and by whom they they were advised? This is particularly pertinent for my constituents, because Heysham is the nearest station to major centres of populations, with tens of thousands of people living in Morecambe and Lancaster within a mile or so of the station. Many of my constituents will have families affected and they want to know how the safety of workers in the station and those living near the plant will be protected. I know that these seem elementary points to some hon. Members, but people also want to know the nature of the risks to which they might be exposed and the health consequences if the highly unlikely should happen.
They feel that they should have had earlier and franker explanations of the problem of residual radioactive material when a plant is finally closed. When the working life of a plant is over—and this will be within the lifetimes of many younger people—there will be some radioactive material that will have to be sealed off on the site. This presents a picture which must cause people to think seriously about the morality of such an operation.
The public also wants to know why we are engaged on re-processing spent fuel for other countries. We know that there are very good reasons, which are to be discussed over the next few months, but people want to know why Britain is undertaking this work. This is of particular significance to my constituents, for spent fuel travels through my con-

stituency from Barrow-in-Furness, where it is landed.
One avenue has been opened which, if utilised, could provide a way of making clear the information and procedures about which I have been speaking. This explanatory and watchdog rôle could be a valuable service for the Health and Safety Commission. This is a new body and, while I am not suggesting that it should become a defender of advances into the new frontiers of technology, it could explain the checks in being and what is being done to see that they are operating effectively.
I received a favourable answer from the Secretary of State when I asked that the Commission's annual report should include a section on nuclear safety, its comments and any matters brought to its attention. Instead of the lengthy technical letters I have had from Ministers, with their piecemeal replies and comments—I do not say that in a derogatory sense—we should have as a matter of urgency a comprehensive safety manual showing exactly what safeguards are operated and by whom. I hope that the next time this question is raised we shall be told that a proper working relationship has been established between the Nuclear Safety Executive and the new Health and Safety Commission. This is important.
I am conscious of my own inadequacy and that of most other hon. Members, to make a judgment on many of these issues, but all hon. Members have a very heavy personal responsibility in these matters when their constituencies are affected. I have endeavoured to find out what bodies are involved and who serves on them. There are numerous bodies and their members are men of high personal and scientific reputation. In a free and democratic country, I am sure that if one of those men were deeply concerned about safety aspects, he would speak out. I have no qualms on that score. The bodies are of such a kind that they constitute a real protection. But that does not relieve the general public from the difficulty of sifting these issues for themselves.
For instance, it was a long time before many of my constituents realised that the nuclear technology in the power station being built at Heysham was not that which was causing so much discussion


on the other side of the Atlantic. That was not understood by them when television and the other media started to deal with these issues.
There is a continuing need for reassurance and for probing and examination by the House. Tonight I am asking that when we have procedures built up over the years, operated by men of integrity, good standing and great knowledge, the public should be able to follow them clearly and simply and understand what has been done by successive Administrations to protect them from the risks they may not be qualified to assess but which we all know can arise in nuclear power generation.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is, in the terms of the motion, a debate on matters of nuclear safety; but it is also, equally in the terms of the motion, a debate whereby this House, by taking note, approves what is a working and effective document of the European Economic Community.
During the 18 months or so that we have been having debates of this kind, though usually at a less reasonable hour, it has constantly been observed that we seem to get back over and again from the debate on the proposition immediately before the House to the fundamental issue of the membership of the European Economic Community by the United Kingdom. It is sometimes suggested that that is because those of us who are opposed to membership take the opportunity of making these debates a field day for the purpose; but usually it is possible to observe that it is those who are on both sides of that divide who find themselves obliged to move on from the immediate proposition, from the documents directly under the examination of the House, to consideration of the fundamentals. There is something about the fact of the House taking note—even more, of the House approving—of documents and legislation of the EEC that forces us, whether we want to do it or not, to examine again the nature of our commitment and the effect of that commitment upon the House.
I cannot this evening be accused of having dragged this topic into the debate, for my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) opened his contri-

bution to it by a glowing panegyric to the supremacy of the House of Commons and the undiminished responsibility and powers of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend has every right to utter that panegyric, and it does my heart good to hear him repeat from that position of somewhat greater responsibility and inhibition what he has said over and over again from these Benches.
My hon. Friend was not one of those who voted to surrender the exclusive legislative and taxing power of the House. He was one of those who from beginning to end of the debate—and, so far as I know, until this present time—maintained intact his defence of the supremacy of Parliament—I notice that the custom is creeping back of referring to that supremacy as the "sovereignty" of Parliament—although speaking this evening to an entirely innocuous motion and amendment.
I invite the House to consider how far what we are doing even in this debate is consistent with the arbitrament and the sovereignty of the House of Commons. Several hon. Members who have spoken—notably the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)—pointed out that this modest—my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry called it a tremendously modest—proposal is nevertheless the beginning of something very large and that we commit ourselves very deeply by the even tacit approval which I think it is the inclination of the House to give.
That decision will not again return to the Floor of the House. With great respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry fell into error—a venial error—when he said that in due course the House would be asked to vote the cost of these research projects. He will recall that these are not expenditures which the House votes and that once the project has been approved—not by us, but by the Council of Ministers—the apportionment and the laying upon our taxpayers of whatever expenditure results follows automatically. So we are confronted with the incompatibility, even upon this minute scale, of the very principle of this organisation with the assertion of the control of the House over the law and the taxes of this country.
Much more interesting is the case of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). He, too—very deservedly—on


behalf of his Committee and himself personally has received the meed of praise which has never failed in these debates for the work which the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation does for the House. Now, the right hon. Gentleman is not merely a confessed but an exultant supporter not only of British membership of the EEC as it is but of what the Community professes to intend to develop into. The notion of political and economic union as the outcome of our membership does not shock the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he regards it as the ultimate justification for all these earlier stages and procedures.
That being so, I was particularly interested to read the grounds upon which he and his Committee had been left with reservations which they thought should be communicated to the House in the context of these instruments and which they believed merited debate. These were that the efficacy of centralised Community handling might compare unfavourably with that arising from national treatment; that in the United Kingdom's case information had been obtained at considerable national effort and expense; that it was not clear whether information of demonstrably commercial value which we owned was likely to be compromised by pooling; that one of the documents gave initial priority to aspects which were not a feature of United Kingdom future plans; that consideration on a wider international basis than the Community one now suggested might be felt appropriate.
I do not intend to put too much weight upon mere wording; but every one of those considerations is a national consideration. It is a consideration which looks at these proposals and their consequence from the point of view of the nation state. Even the view which quite a number of participants in the debate have taken, that this is a matter better handled in a wider international forum, in the forum of more states than are comprised in the EEC, is itself the point of view of the national state; for nationalism is not necessarily, and certainly should not be, inconsistent with the widest and deepest co-operation and understanding between nation states.
Yet the concept of the EEC legislation which binds this House—and, it so happens, the very documents which we

are considering—rests upon the assumption that the nation state, and in particular the United Kingdom as a nation state, is obsolescent and is in course of being absorbed into the structure of the EEC. Sure enough, that is what we find upon the face of these documents.
In his memorandum to the House upon them the Secretary of State has in each case said that the document will not do very much for United Kingdom safety. In one document he states:
It is not expected that the proposal would have a significant effect on existing United Kingdom safety standards.
In the other document there is a similar expression:
It is not expected that any significant changes in United Kingdom safety standards will be required.
In other words, no direct contribution from this activity towards the standards and the practice of safety here in the United Kingdom is anticipated. However, the hon. Member for Heeley put his finger upon the really significant sentence, the key to the whole business, when he quoted the sentence—and I quote the words again because they are worth quoting again—
The long-term objective is to provide the software"—
I take it that that is a word which, in the purer language of William Shakespeare, would have been "know-how"—
to ensure the commercial introduction of fast reactors on a Community basis".
The ultimate objective of all that is being introduced on the front of safety is that the Community as the Community—the words are "on a Community basis"—shall set up in the nuclear business on the basis of fast reactors. I repeat the words,
the commercial introduction of fast reactors on a Community basis".
This debate comes a week or two before our first consideration in this House of a further legislative step which will further mark the absorption of the United Kingdom, as a nation, into the European Economic Community. I refer, of course, to the question of direct elections to the European Assembly by the electorate of the United Kingdom. Whether hon. Members will vote for or against that, the House should recognise that we are insufficiently clear, as yet, and we are therefore insufficiently clear


with our partners in the Community, as to what we really mean by our membership.
Even tonight we shall allow a document to receive what will be regarded as approval when it is perfectly clear that the long-term objects which lie behind it are not accepted by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. There can be no advantage for this country or for any other in that degree of unclarity. There can be no advantage, no justification, in our moving forward from one stage to another of absorption into the Community with mental reservations on our part—ever deeper mental reservations—which are not understood and not shared by others who will misinterpret our actions.
Therefore, I believe that this motion, although in itself it is concerned with nuclear safety, ought to be used as one further occasion for forcing ourselves, by debate in this House, to say what it is that we intend for the relationship of this country with the EEC and whether we are really heart and soul assenting to what we appear to have done in the Act of 1972, to what we appear to have affirmed by the referendum of last year, and to what we may be about to do by the decision this year, next year or the year after on the question of direct elections.
No, it is not in the deeper sense an abuse of the functions of this House—if it were an abuse of order you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would of course have stopped it long ago—nor a misuse of these debates when we find, again and again, as tonight, that they bring us back to the central question. They do that only because the question is not yet settled.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has spoken with his usual eloquence and penetration, and very sincerely from his point of view. However, I am not at all sure whether it is possible successfully to argue a present case in a retrospective context.
The debate has been interesting in many ways and I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on his speech. His speech today was the first I have heard him make from the Opposition Front Bench. It was most

colourful and was delivered with great feeling and enthusiasm. It was slightly nationalistic in tone, although I do not object to that, and it was the kind of speech which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy might have made himself about a year ago. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is high praise indeed, as, I am sure, would my right hon. Friend. However let me assure the House if I praise the hon. Gentleman's speech it is not because he was good enough to quote me at length.
As my right hon. Friend said when opening the debate, the United Kingdom is well to the front in all nuclear matters. It is important that we should keep our lead. I know the difficulties with the French concerning nuclear fission technology. They started off, as we did, and as we are continuing to do, with the gas-cooled technology. They did not make much of a success of it and they allowed themselves to be sold out to the Americans or to the American companies, which have captured the French and European markets generally with the light-water reactor. As the French have placed themselves in that situation, they would like to drag us the same way.
As I argued on a previous occasion, there is no reason why, if there is to be a standard technology for Europe—I am not so sure that it is necessary, I think diversity is probably better—it might not as well be on the British model. It could continue with the gas-cooled system and perhaps later move on to the heavy-water system rather than adopt permanently the very doubtful technology of the American light-water reactor.
I repeat that it is most important that this country should keep the lead which it has had for a long time. This is certainly true in respect of the nuclear fission processes such as the Magnox reactor and now the AGR. We have Hinkly Point, part of which is now commissioned, and I noticed in the Financial Times this morning that David Fishlock, the science editor, said that it was likely that the AGR would yield comparatively cheap electricity because of the general rise in fuel prices. That is good news, because it is at least some compensation for the time it has taken to develop the advanced gas-cooled reactor.
At any rate, this country is ahead when it comes to nuclear fission processes. It is important that we keep that lead. I agree with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), who serves with me on the Select Committee for Science and Technology, about fast breeders. I am doubtful whether the fast breeders will be commercially available in the near future if only for the reason that in a previous incarnation when I represented Cleveland in North Yorkshire I made a speech on nuclear matters—it was my last speech before my defeat, but I hope that I was not defeated on account of that—and I was assured by the Minister of the day, a Conservative, that we should have fast-breeder reactors in commercial operation by the early 1970s. It is still a long way ahead.
I predict that the greatest difficulty will be when it comes to putting a fast breeder on site, because the nuclear inspectorate will be doubtful about whether to approve that reactor. There is all the difference in the world between developing a reactor as a prototype under special conditions and placing it commercially into an electricity supply system.
Another area in which we probably still have a good lead is fusion research. That has nothing to do with these documents, but I mention it because it is extremely topical. The Russians are claiming a breakthrough with their Tokamak 10. It sounds like a raincoat, but it is in fact a nuclear process.
We are still in the United Kingdom at the laboratory stage, but it is important to devote far more funds to fusion research than we are doing at the moment. There should be no cuting back of the money devoted to that research. If the world generally succeeds with a fusion reactor, radiation leakage and other problems which make ours and the so-called European nuclear safety regulations necessary will be removed at a stroke, because fusion would be a much better way of using the power of the atom for peaceful, not warlike, purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley was a little gloomy about nuclear safety. Our own nuclear safety record has been excellent. We have kept records since 1962. There have been only four fatal

accidents in nuclear power stations, none of which had anything to do with the nuclear process. They were accidents of the type which, unfortunately, occur in all large industrial establishments.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) asked some questions about nuclear safety. The hon. Gentleman charmingly admitted that he did not know much about nuclear reactors. Indeed, he rightly commented that the public had not and could hardly be expected to know a great deal about this subject. Those who pride themselves on having studied it, including many nuclear experts, are probably not as knowledgeable as they pretend.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that these matters are controlled by the independent nuclear inspectorate. That has been one of the strengths of the nuclear safety system in this country. In the United States this matter has been looked after by the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Commission has at various times been a nuclear executive. Here we have an independent nuclear inspectorate.
The licensing system, first set up under the 1959 Act, has been extremely successful. It has been operated with great understanding and it has worked well. So far the British nuclear safety record has been very good. That should not give rise to complacency. We need only one serious nuclear accident with loss of life or great injury to future generations by radioactive fall-out for the whole programme to be condemned by public opinion. There is that ever-present danger.
We shall have to develop and build a nuclear power programme whether we like it or not because fossil fuels will not last indefinitely. As we build extra nuclear power stations, they will inevitabily have to be closer to centres of population. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale referred to a power station at Heysham near his constituency. There are three nuclear power stations within 30 miles of Bristol—Hinkly Point, Berkeley and Oldbury—and another site has now been chosen for a nuclear power station on the other side of the Bristol Channel, in South Wales. This is a matter of great and continuing


public interest and should be of parliamentary concern not only in specialist Commitees, but on the Floor of the House.
There is a common international interest in nuclear safety. I was and remain a convinced pro-European. However, I do not argue that every question must be decided within the context of the EEC. If there had been no EEC, we should have been discussing nuclear safety regulations with the French and the Germans, who are physically closest to us, because this is a matter of neighbouring common interest as with navigation, lighthouses, and other matters of that kind.
Incontinent nuclear fall-out—rogue radioactivity—moving away from where it is properly controlled knows no frontiers. Therefore, we should be grateful to the Select Committee, led with great conscientiousness and care by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), for drawing attention to the financial, administrative and political problems which arise from these two sets of documents.
I wish to make one point of criticism not so much of the Committee—that would be ungenerous—as of the way we do things. Evidence was taken from the Under-Secretary of State. I have read that evidence. My hon. Friend valiantly and ably defended his Department's view. It must have been a little difficult for him, because I know that he is not one of God's natural Europeans. However, no evidence was taken by the Scrutiny Committee from technical witnesses. In its Report the Committee deals with other EEC regulations and documents. For example, there is one relating to meat products. The Committee took written technical evidence on meat products, but it does not seem to have taken any technical evidence on this matter.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman said that the Under-Secretary of State defended his Department's view. However, it seems that the hon. Gentleman defended the Commission's view. Would the hon. Gentleman care to distinguish between the two?

Mr. Palmer: I thought that I did. In his evidence—he should not be criticised for this—my hon. Friend made the point

that since the summer of last year we had had a full hand in the shaping of EEC documents. I do not see why my hon. Friend should be criticised on that account. He was speaking for his Department on EEC consumptions. As I say, it must have been difficult for him, because of his past views, and perhaps because of his present views, to speak well of the merits of the EEC as an institution.
It was a pity that no evidence was taken, for instance, from the Atomic Energy Authority, or the Central Electricity Generating Board, so that some comparison could have been made available of the strengths or weaknesses of the system for ensuring safety that we have in Britain with what is now commonly proposed for the EEC generally, bearing in mind that the type of reactor that the EEC as a whole understandably is the light-water variety not the system that we are operating.
It is not criticism of the work of the Scrutiny Committee when I say that it is a pity that no evidence of that kind has been made available to the House. However, it might be possible for us in future to organise a system so that if it is felt, for example, that a technical point has arisen, it could be passed to the Select Committee on Science and Technology to look at. Such a facility might be a way of overcoming any procedural difficulties that at present exist.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The debate began a little earlier than I anticipated and I must apologise for not hearing the Front Bench speeches.
When I first realised that this debate was taking place following a debate of a similar nature in another place, I tried to relate the work that I have done in the Committee on Energy, Research and Technology of the European Parliament with the attitude of this Parliament towards nuclear safety. I have tried to clarify my mind as to the matters with which I think we should be concerning ourselves. The primary consideration is nuclear safety, irrespective of whether that is a national consideration, an international consideration or even a European consideration.
A secondary matter which follows from the first is the clarification of nuclear


safety in terms of standards and codes. It is essential that those standards and codes be international, but if they cannot be international they should be recognised within the Community, of which we are a member.
The decision that we take on what is safe, is based on the judgment of our nuclear scientists and engineers, but our judgment may not be that of the French, the Germans, the United States or the Soviet Union. There must be international collaboration on nuclear safety between engineers and scientists at inspector level and academic level. However, if a standard is to be approved by Parliament and Government, and approved by the elected people, there must be some collaboration at a democratic level, namely, within the institutions of Parliament or Parliaments.
It is right that the Scrutiny Committee should have cried "Halt". It is right that there should have been a debate in another place. We must consider where the Health and Safety Commission comes into the matter. I remember the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) serving with me on the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I well remember the Committee inquiring into the likely programme of nuclear developments within Britain. The Committee heard a representative from the inspectorate. At that time he had to concern himself with what was then under development. He was unprepared to anticipate too far ahead the safety standards of the Westinghouse pressure and boiling-water reactors or the General Electric system pending the decision which was taken by a Conservative Government.
When I listened to that representative and interrogated him, I had immense sympathy with him for the responsibility he carried. As politicians we can expect inspectors to tell us whether a certain installation siting is safe, but I well remember discussing the development of Concorde at an early stage with representatives from Farnborough and from other centres. In the field of aviation too there is the problem of making quite certain that inspection standards are adequate.
I have had the advantage of taking part in meetings with Western European

Union and the Council of Europe, and going to the United States with the appropriate science and technology committees to compare new developments and safety standards in the nuclear field. Safety and the preservation of our environment are all-important at present. It is essential that no nuclear development takes place at the risk of the community. There must be no risk of a breakdown that endangers hundreds or even thousands of lives.
International agencies such as the OECD and the Nuclear Energy Agency are considering these matters. When I was undertaking my report with Western European Union, I found that scientists and industrialists were coming together under the British nuclear forum as part of a wider "Atomforum". When we talk about nuclear development and nuclear safety we should think in international terms, defining the rôles of British and international technical bodies in relation to this Parliament.
We must think not only of safety but of development. To what extent are fusion, the Joint European Torus programme and the fast-breeder reactor and high-temperature reactor design and development competitive, in terms of national activity and co-operative in terms of international activity? Is nuclear development to be nationally competitive so that British industries can have an advantage over those of Germany, France and the United States, or is there a level at which such development should be competitive but not at the expense of co-operation?

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the high-temperature reactor has been more or less abandoned with the closing down of the Dragon project, which is a great pity.

Mr. Osborn: The high-temperature reactor is an interesting case in point, and I should like to elaborate on it. In dealing with fast breeders and high-temperature reactors the question is whether they should be nationally competitive, with one nation's industry expanding at the expense of another, or whether we should try to achieve international co-operation to provide the alternative source of energy that is so vital to our way of life.
This question has been dealt with at the recent meetings of the Committee on Energy, Research and Technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), who will be replying to the debate from this side, is a member of that Committee, together with Lord Bessborough from another place. During the course of discussion the Dragon programme was mentioned in relation to the high-temperature reactor development, and there was a discussion on fast-breeder development. There is a good case for the development of the Phoenix-type fast breeder. Collaboration is taking place between Germany and France, and there seems to be a dialogue between these countries to the exclusion of the type of fast-breeder reactor which we are developing at Dounreay.
I make this comment as an observer of a dialogue and discussion and as one who has been associated with the Phoenix development as a rapporteur of another committee. I have visited Dounreay three times during the course of the development there.
Is fast-breeder reactor development to be competitive between industries and engineers of the United States of America, France, Germany and Great Britain—let alone the Soviet Union—or is there to be a level of collaboration? I believe that there should be much more collaboration in the field of research and development, let alone safety standards, within the Community—let alone between the Community and the United States of America—than is the case at the present time.
If we permit this sort of competitive development in the fast-breeder field, we should try to prevent what occurred at Detroit Edison some 12 to 14 years ago, when the pilot plant had so many engineering short-cuts that it broke down, fortunately with no danger and no loss of life. In this instance, by cutting down the safety precautions a breakdown resulted. This is the danger facing the United States of America, where the development is more competitive than in this country.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East mentioned the Dragon project. There have been debates here and it has been very much the concern of the Member of Parliament for the area concerned, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West

(Mr. Spicer), who is also a member of the European Parliament. Is there a rôle for the high-temperature reactor, whether nationally or internationally? I regard what has happened to Dragon as a classic tragedy for international co-operation at Community level, let alone at world-wide level.
The Germans, based on Brown Boveri and others, have high-temperature development in hand, and collaboration with the Swiss. The General atomic pilot project at Fort Vrain has encountered certain difficulties, and obviously there are technical problems involved. At Winfrith there has been a first-class back-up team, a first-class development team and a first-class research team, but that has been disbanded to the extent that it is not worth while bringing it together again.
I have attended a discussion when the Commissioner concerned has been talking to the Committee on Energy, Research and Technology, and I could only reach the conclusion that, had the Germans been more sensitive and more willing to cooperate with Britain and the team here, and had our Ministers, working at the Council of Ministers level, been more willing to offer co-operation to the Germans, let alone a joint offer of commercial ventures in the United States of America, there could well have been a case for keeping the team that has worked so well, and making arrangements to ensure that it continued at a very small cost to the British taxpayer. But that is too late and it is no use crying over spilt milk.
It is essential that we should have an alert Front Bench willing to co-operate internationally at ministerial level. This willingness seems to be greatly lacking.
At Culham we have the greatest expertise in fusion. I have been in touch with the Culham team and its head. I am concerned that fusion development should go ahead. But it seems that for political reasons, although British and European money will be used to develop the fusion project, the decision will be with political rather than industrial, commercial or technical criteria dominating and if this should be at the expense of our own team we would suffer as a result. That is one more example of poor international and European collaboration.
I fear that I have spoken at far too great a length on development, and before concluding I want to come back to safety. In the nuclear field I believe that development must be on an international scale, and a useful basis for this is within the Commission. But it is essential that we have the right outward point of view from this House, and that our scientists and engineers are encouraged at every level to collaborate with their counterparts first in the Community and secondly in the Western world.
But, thirdly, if there is to be this collaboration in development, there must also be collaboration in safety and safety standards. I accept that to have a European training programme in connection with safety and safety standards gives us cause to think that perhaps we should consider this again and consider whether it is a rôle that the Commission should take on itself or whether there should be some other structure for it. I am not prepared to comment on this, but what is essential is that in the absence of a better alternative perhaps what has been put forward by the Commission is a positive step in the right direction.
The value of a debate of this type is obvious when issues of nuclear safety are raised. We have had a fine report from Frau Walz in Germany on safety criteria in the siting of power stations. The report was debated in Luxembourg. In the report, Frau Walz developed a comparison with the standards set in other countries. There have been individual initiatives and efforts to compare what each member of the Community is doing to assist in this assessment of standards to reach a common denominator so that no one country goes ahead to the disadvantage of any of the Nine or of any other country.
Therefore, I welcome this debate. It is of value to us in the European Parliament to know the conclusions of this House.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Peter Viggers: This is a wide-ranging debate, and I want to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) and refer briefly to nuclear safety in this country and the public concern that there is about it.
I had an example recently in my own constituency—and I refer to it only briefly—when I had occasion to discover that there are three ways of disposing of nuclear waste. There is the high level of nuclear waste which must be disposed of in special circumstances. There is the very low level of nuclear waste which can be disposed of without special precautions. Then there is a medium level which can be disposed of on refuse disposal sites. After putting down a number of Questions, I discovered that it was difficult to get at the exact truth about the amount of radioactive material which had been disposed of on such sites. I raised the matter upstairs in Standing Committee when the Under-Secretary was present, and I am glad to have this opportunity to raise it tonight on the Floor of the House.
In a democracy it is not good enough for the Government to imply that they know best and that they can conceal information from the people. The fear of being alarmist is ever present with every Member of Parliament. Nevertheless, when a subject is of such importance to their constituents, Members of Parliament have to follow matters through. When they do, I trust that the Government will respond with clear answers, because in a properly organised democracy there should be nothing to be afraid of on this score.
On the wider subject before us, we can be enthusiastic members of the European Community without losing our critical faculties. We have seen my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) exerting his critical faculties, although no one would accuse him of not being a friend of Europe.
There is an interesting relationship between the Commission of the European Community, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Select Committee, the membership of which is drawn from all parts of the House. It seems from this short debate that the Government are taking the attitude towards reports by the Commission that they have towards their own legislation when it goes through the House and to Standing Committee. Those of us who sit on Standing Committees find that the Government have a feeling that their virility is being impugned if anyone seeks to


change the legislation before the Committee. I was rather surprised to discover that the Government seem to have the same sort of attitude towards reports and suggested agreements of the Commission, although the Government have only a one-ninth share in creating those reports of the Commission.
It seems to me that it would be quite appropriate to suggest to the Government—and this is something for the House to consider—that Parliament ought not to divide between Government and Opposition on subjects such as that now before it, but should consider very carefully as a House of Commons whether it has a duty to act as such. Indeed, it can take account in considering that duty the report of its own Select Committee, drawn from both sides of the House, which has been quite harshly critical of this proposal.
The principle of Cabinet solidarity has been breached by hints and innuendo over the last year or two. I was interested to see that the Secretary of State seemed to be four-square firmly behind the Commission's report. It seems to me that it is not completely necessary that that should be so on every occasion, because, after all, there can be issues on which the United Kingdom Government and the people of the United Kingdom have an angle which does not necessarily reflect precisely the view of the Commission. Therefore, in each case of participation in Europe we all can and all should look with a critical eye at the advantages and disadvantages.
By supporting the Commission proposal the Secretary of State was led up some strange paths—for instance, the path of argument on cost-effectiveness. No effort appears to have been made to assess the value of our skill and expertise which is to be pooled in the Commission research faculty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford made this point far more forcefully than I can, and it requires an answer from the Under-Secretary this evening.
I note in particular that the pooling is really all that can happen at this stage, because the working parties are to meet up to four times a year and each time for one or two days. During the "up to three or four times a year" and during "for one or two days" there is no opportunity at all of carrying out a meaningful

programme of research. All that can be done at this stage is to pool skill and expertise and consider a programme of research. There certainly cannot be any real European programme at this early stage. It will be merely a build-up of knowledge at the European headquarters and a carrying away of skills by the less advanced. Therefore, pooling may not be to our benefit.
The Secretary of State skated neatly around the cost of pooling our own research. We have learned that we have to watch the right hon. Gentleman. He can be the most persuasive and logical of people, but we must watch for the moment when his feet leave the ground and he enters the clouds of woolly Never-never Land. He skated expertly and without any connection with reality around the true cost of our pooling of research. I tried to note what he said when talking about a cost of £50,000 and pooling our research. I tried to jot it down and I think I am right in saying that he said "Our experts will ensure that we receive a fair return for the contribution we make." However, how is that to be done? If we have more skill and expertise than other countries, how are we to ensure that we receive a fair return for the skill and expertise that we contribute? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should hold back any excess over a fair proportion, or is he saying that he does not really want to face the question?
The second major point concerns the pooling of research and training. Is not standardisation the aim and should we not consider, regardless of the warm personal regard we may have for our European colleagues, the British aim to compete rather than to collaborate? I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) when he says that collaboration rather than competition should be the aim. The type of reactor upon which the research programme is to concentrate is not one that we should choose to pursue.
I concur with the view that our processes for dealing with European legislation are far from right. European institutions have their own impetus. Once a body is created, it becomes self-perpetuating and tasks are found for it rather than its continuing with tasks that need to be done. An example of this is


the Joint European Torus where there is a body of opinion that wishes the project to be based at Ispra. I suspect that that is because Ispra is there rather than that it is the best place for it. A visitor to European institutions is impressed by the on-going and expansionist view of European activities. There is no real thought of retrenchment or retraction, or even of standing still. Those committed to Europe are committed to continuity and expansion. Therefore, in view of this commitment to expansion it is right that we should look with a jaundiced eye at any new concept and it is entirely right that the Select Committee's view and its criticisms should be noted by the House and the Government.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: It is right that the House of Commons should discuss a matter of this magnitude. Although the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) said that the Scrutiny Committee was incapacitated in that it did not call expert witnesses, it had the services of the Under-Secretary and all his resources. The Committee could also refer to the Thirty-Second Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the European Communities which dealt with technological problems of nuclear safety. That Report contains all the arguments of the technical people who considered this matter extremely exhaustively from all points of view.
Later I shall refer to some of the items as they were adduced. However, first, I want to refer to the Secretary of State. He has given me the impression that he is purely and simply a paper tiger, going abroad but not doing the best for the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, when we expected a continuation of the high-temperature reactor, Dragon, at Winfrith Health we found that it was to be discontinued, although the French and Germans are collaborating on the importance of the high-temperature reactor for process heat.
The right hon. Gentleman is also on trial in the sense that we are debating both here and in Europe where the JET project is to be located, whether it will be in the United Kingdom or at Ispra in Italy. There is every reason, because of expertise, why it should be located in the United Kingdom, although according to

Press reports it will be located in Italy. Will the right hon. Gentleman stand up to the Europeans and say that the collective view of this House is that the JET project should be located in the United Kingdom?
When the Secretary of State went to the United States to deal with the oil companies, he made some speeches. I notice that he has not made similar speeches in this House to inform hon. Members of his precise views. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that nuclear safety was an international matter. It is an international problem with which we are all concerned. However, one matter is outstanding. There is a plethora of international authorities. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said that he would stand by the International Atomic Energy Agency of Vienna, the selection I would make is the Nuclear Energy Agency as part of OECD. I suggest the latter because it associates under one umbrella considerable expertise from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy and Belgium. Those are the countries that have the expertise.
The organisation in Vienna tends to give information to the less-developed States. However, I agree that it has made a significant contribution in producing a code for the transportation of radio-active materials. These bodies and others, like the International Energy Agency and the United Nations affiliates, cover all necessary aspects of nuclear safety.
The Under-Secretary said in Committee that we should look at these matters in a world-wide context. If he is looking to Europe, he is dealing with a regional context. Could we not take a broader view than that? Lord Hinton of Bank-side said at page 25 of the evidence to the Lords Select Committee:
If you already have close contact between the nuclear members of the EEC and if you already have two international bodies which are broader than the EEC, is there need for another international body?
What can it contribute? What will it supply to the United Kingdom for £50,000? What will we contribute to it in information, and what will we receive in return?


Harmonisation at this stage is premature. I hope that the Department will observe that Mr. F. R. Farmer told the Select Committee of the House of Lords, dealing with Paper No. R.681/75:
I believe it is very much too early to do this and that it is questionable whether the safety of reactors over the past 10 years has been best promoted by regulation rather than by more perceptive identification of the major technical problems.
Is not that expert evidence clear? Should we not try to decide this matter technologically instead of acting as a political Chamber?
Lord Hinton of Bankside, in another pertinent remark, said:
Where there is no uniformity of design, how can design be standardised in a new and advanced technology?
Mr. R. R. Matthews, Chief Nuclear Health and Safety Officer of the CEGB, said:
The feasibility of trying to harmonise and standardise safety equipment is doubtful. This can inhibit design and safety improvements and only seems practicable if fully standardised plant is being considered.
The two memoranda before us suggest to me that the Community is set on a course of harmonisation. While I am prepared to concede that it may be desirable to harmonise direct taxation, death duties and so on, it is madness to pursue that course with an expanding technology which has not fully evolved. There are certain difficulties in the method of approach. In the United Kingdom, we have the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which has had a fantastic record. A paper that I have before me says:
The Magnox reactors have between them accumulated over 200 years of operating experience at high load factors. As may be expected, there have been a number of defects and failures, but comparatively minor, and no major leaks… There has never been an accidental release of radioactivity from the nuclear power stations of the United Kingdom, having significant effects outside the site boundary and no member of the public has been exposed to radiation, either from planned discharges of low level radioactive waste or direct radiation from the plant which approached the permissible levels recommended.
We see the United Kingdom's approach as expressed by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which says to the manufacturers "You must produce safe plant, otherwise we shall not allow you to build it. You must design equipment that is in

accordance with the specifications that are laid down." In other words, if those specifications are observed, the inspectorate will agree them.
That is our pragmatic approach, which is somewhat different from that adopted in the United States. In the United States the Atomic Energy Commission adopts the practice of requiring and regulating the design and construction of nuclear plant in considerable detail. It is noteworthy that the Commission is pursuing the line adopted in the United States. However, we are moving in a different direction. If Europe must harmonise, perhaps we can provide a field for it. It may be that more rewarding areas for harmonisation lie in general site criteria, considerations of external hazards, such as the effect of earthquakes, aircraft crashes and sabotage on nuclear power stations, radiological protection and the disposal of nuclear waste. That is one way in which the system could operate.
I turn to the next substantial point, namely, that regional harmonisation is inferior to multinational agreements. Mr. F. R. Farmer, Director of the Safety and Reliability Division of the AEA, said on 3rd July last:
I believe that standardisation, that is harmonisation of the efforts of the different countries, does not need to be done under the EEC. It would in any event be done by bilateral or trilateral discussions and one needs to have a lot of knowledge of the design and future intent to test the relevance of these assumptions… The growth from bilateral to trilateral to multi-lateral might take place in any event and I think that the Commission … might promote that.
It is significant to see how far Mr. Farmer goes.

On the question of collaboration between countries, Mr. Farmer said:
It is a very effective way at the present time … bilateral is already proceeding to trilateral and multi-lateral. Some agreements are now between the CEA, France, the Federal Republic, Japan and the United Kingdom and might indeed include one other country.

If arrangements are spread throughout Europe on a national basis and if there is an interest in ensuring that safety be maintained in nuclear reactors, why should we set up a composite body costing £50,000 a year from which it is difficult to assess benefits? We were told by the Secretary of State that there would be considerable overlap, and he suggested


that that in itself could be helpful. However, the House of Commons is not here to suggest that there should be any overlapping of facilities. There are already in existence international facilities to cover this topic. Why bother to have a regional set-up when one has an international problem? These are questions of nuclear safety and are not only regional problems. If the expertise exists at national level, let the nations get together.

It is worth bearing in mind that Mr. D. R. Fryer, Assistant Chief Inspector, National Nuclear Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, said on 3rd July 1975:
I think that the national authorities will have to operate very much as they are for a very long time in the future. I think that the Commission's rôle is one of a catalyst and a centre for encouraging harmonisation, but I would not envisage that the Commission would be able to exercise an effective control… It would be extremely difficult to institute any central control which would be effective. The national authorities must for the time being retain their national responsibilities in the field of regulation…".

Mr. Benn: Mr. Benn indicated assent.

Mr. Skeet: I see that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that that was indicated. I am sorry that he has come into the Chamber so late, but I expect that he will have the opportunity of reading what I have said. The debate required some technical information from the report indicating what should be done. The advice of the Department, which must be prompting the Secretary of State almost every day, is that what is required is not another European body—because one must be rational and sensible about it—but an interlinking of national bodies in Europe with Japan and the United States. That is the way to ensure nuclear safety.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Tom Normanton: At this stage in the evening after an unexpectedly long debate it is appropriate to refer to the forthright manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) moved the amendment to the motion. He said that Britain was not a supplicant nation. I hope that that statement will be endorsed by all. We are, and I hope that we shall always be, seen internationally as an active,

energetic, prosperous nation in all the processes involved, particularly those involving our membership of the EEC.
The Secretary of State referred to the great chance that will flow from the development of public debate on energy. I hope that Britain's participation in the Community is better and more definite than the right hon. Gentleman's participation in the Community at home.
I shall try to concentrate on the theme of Britain's involvement in the research and technological aspects of our membership of the Community and those matters referred to in the two documents rather than on the procedural aspects of the debate. But is incumbent upon me, not for the first time and perhaps not for the last, to stress what has been said on the Opposition Benches about the effective and appropriate way of dealing with Community legislation.
The House will recognise the debt that we owe to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and his Committee. I regret that we still have not established a procedure appropriate to the Scrutiny Committee's standing and importance and relevant to the subjects presented to it. The timing fails to ensure that the views and knowledge of the Committee members are taken into account in formulating policy in the Community. The House still fails to use to the full the experience and active involvement of hon. Members on both sides in the European Parliament and its many committees. They are in the unique position, denied to many of us, to see in advance Commission documents covering most if not all aspects of policy formulation. They enjoy the opportunity to influence the formulation of Commission proposals, and they should have the benefit of the expertise, opinions and influence of this House.
Hon. Members fail to realise that there are opportunities for initiatives in the European Parliament, opportunities for putting new lines of thought to the Commission in the interests of Britain and of the Community as a whole. The House should speed up progress towards establishing the right procedures and mechanisms to deal with important Community matters effectively and at the right time.
I turn to the subject of the debate, which is research into nuclear matters.


We are debating a motion about two sets of Commission proposals, which I can only describe as minnows compared with the much vaster and far more important document which I believe should have been taken in conjunction with them. I refer to the Commission proposals concerning "The overall concept for the next multinational research programme of the Joint Research Centre," COM(75)529 final, a communication from the Commission to the Council. It is now that the House should be making its views known and making sure that they are reflected in the formulation of Community policy, but that document is not mentioned on the Order Paper.
I do not believe that I am stretching the rules of order, to which I bow, or imposing on your willingness to be flexible, Mr. Speaker, when I say that the documents before us have as their background the programme of multinational Community research. They refer to the various sources from which the two working parties will draw their information and expertise. One of those sources, though only briefly hinted at, is the projects in which the JRC has been energetically involved for a long time. Therefore, we should not take the view that we are debating something completely new, something which has suddenly appeared and which has no connection with the past. It is part of an on-going process of which the House should have been more forcefully made aware.
We must also take into account that the documents are, in budgetary terms, comparable with a petty cash account seen against the massive amount of money consumed by the JRC and the many projects for which it is responsible. The JRC was formed by the legislation which created Euratom. Its main object was to deal with nuclear research and development. I believe that its resources amount to about £200 million of committed budgets and that it employs 800 to 1,000 staff, most of whom are dealing with the very subjects to which the two working parties will be directed.
I have no hesitation in saying that throughout the three years that I have been a member of the European Parliament, during which time I have served on the Community Research and Technology Committee, I have been hypercritical of the basis on which the Joint

Research Centre was founded and of the way in which it has been managed and directed. I cannot describe it in terms permissible by our parliamentary procedure, but if I describe it as a politicians' muddle, I hope that it will be appreciated that I am using the word "politicians" in substitution for one which might not be regarded as a parliamentary expression.
It is a calamity, a most appalling waste of public money, because political policy and political decisions have dominated the technological research which is the real purpose of such an institution. Therefore, I earnestly ask the Under-Secretary, but more particularly the Secretary of State himself, to give serious attention to the waste of public money and technological resources which are involved in this Community project.
That should not for a moment be construed as implying any criticism from myself as a member of the European Parliament or as a Member of this House. It should not be construed as implying that there is not a rôle for the Community to play in the matter of research, but the way in which that rôle has been played in the past—and certainly if it is allowed to continue in that form—is a matter which could well be one for debate and recrimination across the Floor on some other occasion. Therefore, I earnestly appeal to the Secretary of State to take a very close and intense look at what is happening at that centre.
My hon. Friends have raised a number of points to which I hope the Under-Secretary will reply. Although I do not share the intense anxiety and concern about the commercial value of the United Kingdom contribution to these projects that was expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford, I agree that it is of crucial importance that the concern expressed by others should be met. I do not believe that it is possible to quantify the value of expertise in nuclear safety; nor do I think that it should be the subject of negotiation. It is, however, a point of considerable importance to many hon. Members on this side of the House, and I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to be clear and explicit on the subject when he replies to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry sought an assurance that the


implications of the proposals in the two documents would not result in a movement towards a policy of standardisation of nuclear equipment and plant. I believe that there may well be grave disadvantages in standardising on any one or a series of technologies, techniques, plants and systems concerned with nuclear generation. There is great virtue in giving the maximum scope for individual industrial and national expertise in all fields of nuclear technology. I am sure all hon. Members here and in the European Parliament are deeply concerned that we should have minimum standards of health and safety. This should be the meat and drink of the working parties proposed in these documents.
My hon. Friend the Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) did a very great service to the people of Britain and, no doubt, to many hon. Members when he referred to the AGC at Heysham and British Nuclear Fuels at Windscale and particularly to the very important point about the piecemeal treatment of nuclear matters in this House. There has been a total absence of reliable knowledge and well-informed opinion for the public. These are certainly matters within the scope of the proposals which should be receiving consideration at both national and Community level. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us what the Government are proposing to do to fill this crucial void.
Among the people of Great Britain and, regrettably perhaps even more so, the people of Holland and Denmark there is a fear of matters nuclear. The only way to dispel it is by telling people the technical, economic and political facts. As politicians, we have a rôle to play in influencing, guiding and leading public opinion and not bending to every whim and will of those who wish to disturb progress.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is highly consistent in pursuing his total opposition to the concept of what he regards as the abdication of sovereignty by this House. I can assure him and those of similar mind that the Opposition have never and will never abdicate their determination to influence the course of events affecting Britain. For that reason, we welcome this brief debate. We are active, each in our own way, inside

the Community at such levels as are open to us and we insist and urge that the Government should be constructively active and energetic in these fields.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) spoke as a Member of this House and of the European Parliament. He has done a great service by stressing a number of points which concern parliamentarians from all member States of the Community. One common denominator is safety and health. We must have co-operation at all levels on safety and health, even if the character of the measures and the actual mechanics are to establish need and underpin standards rather than make them precise and fixed. Flexibility, yes, but not below a certain level. We shall get from Community policies in proportion to what we put into them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to the disposal of nuclear waste. The Secretary of State should have told the House that the Joint Research Centre is committed to a massive study of this subject. I hope that at the meetings of the Energy Ministers the right hon. Gentleman will stress the importance of this study and let the public know that it is being pursued actively, energetically and constructively. Only by means of such an active policy at home and inside Community institutions shall we allay the widespread and deep-seated fears about the danger of progressing further with nuclear generating capacity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) touched on a matter of profound importance when he referred to the future of JET. I do not wish to adopt a highly critical partisan view, but Britain's activities in collective technology in the European Community leave much to be questioned. Through our own failures and lack of will we have missed the opportunity of the JET project's being based at Culham. I do not under-estimate the deep and growing anxiety about the will of the Government to proceed with European Community projects.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a decision has been made on JET?

Mr. Normanton: Perhaps that question will be answered by the Under-Secretary. The parliamentary political assessment


is that the project will not be based in the United Kingdom. We therefore appeal to the Secretary of State in his further negotiations to do all that lies in his power to show the Community and his fellow Energy Ministers that he has the will and resolution to pursue a Community policy on this issue.

Mr. Skeet: Does my hon. Friend think that there is anything in the point that, because of the attitude taken by the Secretary of State in not going ahead with the Dragon project, the Europeans have been alienated and have therefore decided that the JET project must go to Italy?

Mr. Normanton: I can only voice the political views of parliamentarians in the European Parliament, which is that the decision has already been taken. If I am incorrect, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will refute that statement.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is vital to press on the Minister the importance of not giving in. He must get his teeth into this matter and keep at it until the project is based in this country.

Mr. Normanton: No doubt my hon. Friend has made the point far more effectively and articulately than I could possibly have made it.

Mr. John Davies: My hon. Friend is dealing with an extremely important point Does he agree that the tendency not to quantify the importance and value of British activities lies at the seat of so many failures to carry forward our great progress and achievements?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what has gone on earlier, but we are concerned with safety.

Mr. Normanton: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and simply add that I am sure that the point has already been made.
I should like the Minister to answer three questions. First, is he satisfied with the appropriateness and the effectiveness of co-ordination in connection with the Commission, the two proposed working parties, the JRC and especially Ispra, concerning matters of safety? Secondly, is he satisfied that we shall not see duplication and proliferation of more

and more institutions, although as small as minnows? Shall we see during the implimentation of these proposals another example of the way in which Governments spawn institutions like a frog spawns in a pond? I hope that the Minister can convince us about that.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will convince the House that co-operation at commercial level in the European Community on an industry-to-industry basis is effective and appropriate for nuclear safety. We are not satisfied at present.
Conservatives are not opposed to policies being proposed in the Community by the Community. We are determined to ensure that we play a positive, dynamic and constructive part in the formulation of those policies. We have grave misgivings about the effectiveness of Her Majesty's Government in making such constructive contributions to the policy formulation in the Community. My hon. Frinends and I look forward to hearing the Minister answering misgivings that have been expressed fairly, forcefully, fully and frankly.

9.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): The task which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) placed before me in his closing words is most formidable. Although you, Mr. Speaker, challenged the question of procedure, I find it rather strange that the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench should make a statement which could undermine any possible negotiations which the British Government could have in relation to JET.
I hope that later the hon. Member for Cheadle will be able to reflect and do something that will not undermine the position of the British Government. He said that it is a question of negotiation. The hon. Gentleman went to great lengths to tell us that he had had experience over three years as a European parliamentarian and that, based on that experience, he knew all about these rather complicated negotiations and was able to inform the House that, within the compass of his knowledge, the decision had been taken in connection with JET. The hon. Gentleman must seriously reflect on the attitude he has adopted in


this connection tonight. Of course, it would be out of order for me to go into that matter.
I am grateful to hon. Members for the views they have expressed in the debate. I assure them that their views will be taken into account in preparing for the discussions which have still to take place in Brussels. In those discussions we shall need to consider precisely what the proposed additional staff will do, to what extent they will increase the effectiveness of the working groups and whether they will result in the technical expertise being employed as effectively as possible in the interests of nuclear safety. The Commission has already given an assurance that, with the additional staff, the work can be carried out by the existing working groups without making further demands on the technical experts.
The general aims of these proposals are entirely in accord with our thinking. There is no suggestion whatever that licensing and control of United Kingdom nuclear installations will be centralised in Europe.
Safety at nuclear installations in the United Kingdom is controlled by means of nuclear site licences granted by the Health and Safety Executive. Licence conditions, in the interests of safety, are imposed and enforced by the Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and Government Departments are not subject to the licensing regime, but the legislation imposes on them the same obligations. The proposals will have no effect on our present arrangements.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), with refreshing candour, expressed concern about information being made available and asked whether I could give him some information on the question of giving advice to the general public as he had a constituency interest. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Windscale, which is in close proximity to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham).
On the question of informing the public, contact between the licensee of a nuclear installation and the public in the

area is maintained through a local liaison committee, on which local authorities and other local interests are represented.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: We know that.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Lady was not present when the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale made his contribution. That committee serves to inform the local population about activities and operations at the installation and to provide an opportunity for expressing views and asking questions. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is represented at the committee's meetings. I have tried to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. If I have told him something which he already knew—he did not give me that impression—I apologise.

Mr. Hall-Davis: The difficulty is that small patchworks of the safety protection quilt are unveiled bit by bit. I knew about the committee. I get the minutes of each meeting of the liaison committee. I should like to see a whole framework of protection of the public brought together and outlined in a single document. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at what I said.

Mr. Eadie: I shall certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman said. However, he did not give the impression that he knew about those matters. I am glad that he gets the minutes of the meetings and studies them. I hope that he will inform his constituents about what is taking place, because he seemed to indicate that there was some mystique in relation to these matters. I hope that he will try to do the job that he asked his Front Bench to do. I shall look at the points he made.
There is no question of "harmonising downwards" or reaching a common Community position by lowering national standards. As my noble Friend in another place said, we shall maintain the right to superimpose on Community standards or procedures any additional measures which our independent regulatory authorities consider necessary to protect the public.
It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the Commission's proposals to increase the secretariat staff are designed to support existing Community working groups. Two of those groups are already engaged in the study of light-water reactor


safety, and another two on fast reactor safety.
The working groups have now been at work for several years. They consist of technical experts from member States, including the United Kingdom. Although each of these groups meets only about three or four times a year, the services of the experts are needed for preparation and follow-up work connected with the meetings. It is for the Council to decide whether extra support is needed and, if so, what increase is appropriate. The rôle of the Commission is to reflect the consensus of the national experts within the working groups. Support is provided by the secretariats, which already include five Grade A staff—who are qualified engineers—on light-water reactor safety and three on fast-reactor safety. It is proposed that there shall be an additional three qualified engineers, one technician and one clerical grade under each of the proposals R/2662 and R/2663. That is a total of 10 extra staff in all. The Commission has undertaken to provide these staff from its existing personnel resources.
The scope of the work envisaged is summarised in the Explanatory Memoranda which my right hon. Friend submitted on 26th November 1975. The Government are considering the proposals in terms of the relative strengths of the two secretariats as well as of actual staff numbers. We regard the work being undertaken by the working parties as exploratory. Any draft recommendations from the Commission which might in due course arise out of this work would be carefully considered by the United Kingdom Government and would require to be approved by the Council of Ministers.
If we consider the role of nuclear power in terms of Community energy policy, no matter how successfully the Community develops its fossil fuel resources it seems clear that by the end of the century they will be insufficient to meet all its energy needs. Much of the deficiency will have to be met by nuclear power, an energy resource for which the Community has ambitious targets. Although we do not regard those targets as realistic, there is no doubt that there will be a rapid expansion of nuclear power programmes in the

Community. It is vital to ensure that the reactors meet proper safety standards.
The United Kingdom is more fortunately placed with reserves of fossil fuels than our Community partners. Our own immediate nuclear programme is relatively modest, but we cannot be complacent about reactor safety. Our regulatory procedures are under constant review and we are always ready to discuss our arrangements with our European partners. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) wish to intervene?

Mr. Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman running out of material?

Mr. Biffen: I was a little uneasy about the fatness of the hon. Gentleman's brief. As the Treasury Bench has accepted our amendment, I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he intended to deal specifically with the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) about the balance of the budgetary contributions.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Give him time.

Mr. Biffen: I was also wondering whether the hon. Gentleman would indicate which of the Scrutiny Committee's five specific comments he found most persuasive.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman is being a little impatient. His hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle spoke for 35 minutes. I have been speaking for 10 minutes in trying to answer the various matters raised in the debate. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself and allow me to try to answer the points that have been raised. Indeed, there were differences of opinions on both sides on some of the issues involved. Therefore, I should be obliged if I might be permitted to answer the debate in my own way.
Since Ispra was mentioned in relation to reactor safety, I should point out that the work there involves an analysis of possible accidents and their causes and the development of methods to prevent failures of essential reactor components. We regard this research as a useful focus for practical reactor safety work in Europe. If a new


research programme for the JRC is agreed, the reactor safety field is one in which Ispra would be likely to make a useful contribution. This new programme is due to start on 1st January 1977.
A number of hon. Members referred to the health and safety aspects of nuclear power. All commercial nuclear activities in this country—including transport, handling, treatment and storage of waste—are subject by law to the most stringent regulation and monitoring. This work is undertaken by various authorities, such as the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, and by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who operate quite independently of the nuclear and electricity industries to ensure that the environment and the health and safety of workers and the public are protected.
I have already described what I saw when I visited various nuclear installations as to the protected environment of the people who work in them. Something was said specifically about this in the debate.
I assure the House that the Government take the health, safety and environmental aspects of nuclear power very seriously. There is no question of permitting activities which would be prejudicial to the stringent standards with which the nuclear industry in this country has to comply.
Concerning public involvement, the good record of the United Kingdom in the matter of openness to the public has been recognised in a recent report to the European Parliament by its Committee on Energy, Research and Technology. The Report said that
The United Kingdom would seem to be the only country at present in which the public is kept informed and involved in a truly satisfactory manner.
We intend to maintain this record.
Commercial interests were mentioned particularly by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). It has been suggested that in attending the Community working groups the United Kingdom is giving away its hard-won technical knowledge in the nuclear field.
The United Kingdom is represented on the working groups by experts from the

Atomic Energy Authority, the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Nuclear Power Company and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. Thus the commercial as well as the licensing and regulatory interests of the United Kingdom in this field are fully represented, so that the commercial confidentiality of information is safeguarded. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.
We do not freely hand over research information. The member States give information on the extent of the research programmes. Results are put into the pool of information only after due consideration of the commercial value of information which we expect to get in return. Additionally, we are aware of the research programmes within the Community which allow collaboration arrangements to be made between two, three or four of the member States. These are private and confidential arrangements.
In the course of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the competence of the Commission, which I thought was a very important point. I might say to him that the expertise is provided by the national representatives. The Commission provides the secretariat. It is up to the experts, including those of the United Kingdom, to ensure that their efforts are suitably directed towards achieving achievable goals.
There is clearly some misconception on the part of Opposition Members about the rôle of the Commission. I repeat that it is up to the experts to call the tune.

Mr. Skeet: If the information is supplied by the experts from the nations involved, why have a third body—a regional body under the EEC?

Mr. Eadie: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said about commercial confidence, he would have realised that I had already dealt with that point.
A number of questions were asked about the safety of reprocessing. I fully understand the concern about the safety aspects of nuclear fuel reprocessing. However, such operations carried out in this country—at Windscale, for example—are subject to strict safety procedures supervised by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. The Government are satisfied that these


arrangements ensure a high degree of safety.
Other questions were asked about the transport of nuclear materials. I assure the House that the arrangements for the safe transport of radioactive nuclear materials conform to standards laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the basis of stringent requirements established by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
These requirements include provisions for leak-tightness of the container, which is a massive steel flask, under both normal conditions of transport and under accident conditions. There are tests of the ability of containers to withstand these conditions, including subjecting them to impact, to fire and to immersion in water, including sea water.
The hon. Member for Oswestry raised two important aspects which I shall try to answer. To begin with, I do not think he appreciates that our involvement in the other international bodies and in the Community groups concerned with nuclear safety has been going on for some years. The hon. Gentleman quoted to me what one of my hon. Friends had asked and said that I had not answered it correctly or adequately. However, I think that I answered it perfectly adequately. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who asked me a similar question, he will find that I tried to outline to him as best I could the impact which international bodies had on nuclear safety.
It may be that the hon. Gentleman did not understand what I said. I was trying to describe our concern about nuclear safety and the fact that our involvement had been going on for some years. There are parallel activities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained the differences of function of the various international bodies. The International Atomic Energy Agency has about 100 members covering nations at all stages of technology and nuclear development. The Community, on the other hand, consists of advanced nations, which forms a strong base for co-operation in this field and helps in relation to research and ideas of a wider nature. We are ready and willing to join in the activities at both these levels in the quest for nuclear safety.
The hon. Member for Oswestry raised the question of standardisation as a hidden danger. We believe that by involving United Kingdom experts in these committees—the hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware of the fact that they have been in existence for some years—we shall ensure that our view is very clearly heard, and our experience will be heeded in the quest, if it be a quest, for harmonisation. We regard the work of the working parties as exploratory. We shall not be drawn into a programme for the fast-breeder reactor or any other kind of reactor unless and until we are satisfied from the expert advice of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate that our high standards of safety will be fully maintained.
It is the Government's view that we must continue to investigate nuclear matters with thoroughness and care and to make plans accordingly. We must look to the future both in terms of the demand for nuclear power and the means by which it is to be supplied. There are many aspects of nuclear safety. Some of them have been referred to by hon. Members in the debate—radiological protection, radioactive waste and the transport of radioactive material. All of them call for attention and vigilance in whatever way or ways may be most appropriate at national level, Community level and, more widely, internationally. In all these areas we have played and continue to play a full part.
However, today we have been concerned with one particular aspect—reactor safety in the Community context. In this country our record is a good one and a long one. We intend to keep it so. We think that the work of the reactor safety working parties, already well established, is already giving a valuable service on a Community scale which will profit from support along the lines proposed in the two documents that we are considering, Nos. R/ 2662/ 75 and R/2663/75. The details have still to be worked out through the Council machinery. Aided by the views expressed by hon. Members today, the United Kingdom's interests will be fully represented. As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, we are accepting the Opposition's amendment. There has been a conflict of views, to some extent, on both sides of the House, but we shall take full cognisance of the views that


have been expressed and, indeed, take cognisance of the views of the Scrutiny Committee.

Mr. Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself specifically to the point about the budgetary contribution, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and which was the second observation contained in the Scrutiny Committee's Report? It is a matter which has excited serious concern in all corners of the House.

Mr. Eadie: I know that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter, which was also raised by his right hon. Friend in relation to the procedure. The hon. Gentleman put down the amendment. I have said that all of this will receive consideration by the Government. On the points laid down by the Scrutiny Committee, we have given the assurance by accepting the amendment. That is what the amendment means. That is what we are accepting, and we are accepting what it means.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2663/75 and R/2662/75 and of the importance which the Government attaches to matters of nuclear safety, and invites the Government to take account of the observations of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation on these documents'.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE PERSONNEL (SOUTH WALES)

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I am glad to have the opportunity to bring up the subject of the dispersal of Ministry of Defence personnel to South Wales. I have something of a rather murky story to relate this evening. It concerns the announcement on 3rd February by the Minister of State for Defence. I do not

blame him, because I consider that his superiors have manipulated things and have chosen the St. Mellons site at Cardiff and allocated 5,000 jobs to it.
It is difficult to get civil servants out of London. There are many perfectly understandable reasons for that. However, they agreed to come to the Tredegar Park site at Newport. I refer to a large and influential staff body of the Civil Service Whitley Council, representing over 260,000 staff. This body is wholly opposed to the allocation of and dispersal to St. Mellons. Tredegar Park at Newport has been rejected for no justifiable reason. After that episode, as the staff called it, they quite rightly asked "What price consultation?"
I turn to examine the St. Mellons and Tredegar Park sites. What the staff say about them is revealing. They say that Tredegar Park has always been popular with them. They wrote to the Minister of State on 1st October, after having visited this site on 18th September last year, and pointed out that that was the first occasion on which they had been afforded facilities to visit the site at Newport, as they put it "albeit reluctantly", to meet the Newport and Gwent authorities. That statement by the staff side is questionable and raises suspicions. The staff went on to say that they were surprised to find that the information that was supplied to them by the Welsh Office and the Property Services Agency was:
not as comprehensive as it should have been.
This raises questions about partiality and judgment in the decisions made.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Mr. Hughes: They went on to say about the Tredegar Park site that sufficient land was available there. They are quite clear about this, having taken legal opinion. Secondly, they said that its environmental setting was far better than that of any other site. I know from local connections that it was the home of the lord of the manor, Lord Tredegar, and that it is a beautiful site, as good as any in Wales.
Thirdly, they say that the site is two miles from Newport town centre, adjoining the motorway network, with connections to London, the South-East and the Midlands. From the town centre, no fewer than 23 trains a day run to Paddington. When the new high-speed trains are introduced shortly, the journey will take only 95 minutes. They feel that that advantage should be taken into account.
They point out also that Newport Borough Council has offered to make housing available and that it will shortly invite tenders for the first stage of development of 1,000 houses, with schools and shops. They were impressed with the design and standard of houses on the site and in Newport generally.
Finally, on a comparison with other sites, they were impressed by the landscaping, the trees, hedges and gardens, at Tredegar Park, and said:
It would be nonsense for the Department to turn its back on these facilities.
The staff representatives also bore in mind the fact that Cardiff had promised to plant trees, hedges and gardens and even to put a lake on the St. Mellons site. But the staff asked about the cost and finally said that they measured fact against intent. Tredegar Park was the overwhelming choice of this powerful staff organisation representing 260,000 civil servants in this country and abroad.
Let us examine the St. Mellons site. The staff side made a few general points of criticism. It gave the site a low rating in terms of ease of travel to work. I see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force in his place on the Front Bench. He has been involved in this matter in a somewhat devious way. He will agree with me that St. Mellons is a difficult area in travel terms.
Furthermore, the staff say that there are no facilities for lunch-time shopping, and this particularly hits the married female staff members who find it necessary to shop during the lunch hours. The staff are not satisfied with the road plan for the site or with its links to the M4 motorway network. These are a few general criticisms.
I turn now to the main claims by the staff side. It points out that according to the Property Services Agency con-

siderable sums will need to be spent on piling and making the site dry. The area has a long-standing drainage problem. This has nothing to do with the cost of the project. We know from an article in the South Wales Echo on 5th February that there has been a considerable row in the Cardiff District Council about this topic. It was pointed out that £2½ million would have to be spent on acquiring land for development. This money must be paid by Cardiff ratepayers and they will be resentful when they come to pay their bills.
The staff side of the Whitley Council said that it was not at all impressed with Cardiff's housing or with its design and landscaping. What is more, it said that Cardiff had not been prepared to consult the staff about the St. Mellons site. It pointed to the fact that there is a height restriction on buildings at St. Mellons, a restriction that does not apply in Tredegar Park. In other words, there would have to be on the site a proliferation of low-rise buildings. The staff side emphasises that it is not attracted in any way to such a concept and regards this issue as crucial.
The staff side also expresses anxiety about the proximity of the St. Mellons site to a sewage farm which obviously would need to be enlarged if there were a large housing development in the area. That is not a very attractive proposition for civil servants sent from London.
The staff side also makes the point that there are plans at St. Mellons to provide 4,000 houses adjacent to the Ministry of Defence site, and it stresses that there is a danger of the site becoming a Ministry of Defence ghetto.
The staff who are to go to St. Mellons say that the more they hear about it, the more they are opposed to it. What an indictment this is of Cardiff! Is there no pride left in that city? If people were to direct half that criticism to Newport, I should tell them where to go. The staff's information is from the Whiteheads Consultancy, engaged by the Civil Service Department, and also from what the staff organisations and their representatives have seen for themselves.
I now turn to the sordid attempts—and many of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench bear a responsibility—to stifle Newport's claims for that project.


First, there is the choice of site. Information has been supplied to me by the chief executive of the Newport Borough Council.
The original information given to the county planning officer was that 21·25 acres of land were required. At the beginning of October 1975, the chief executive of Newport was informed by Mr. Alexander of the Property Services Agency that the requirement was now 31 acres. On 6th October, a letter was sent to Mr. Alexander offering 31 acres. On 13th October, the demand was increased to 35 acres and on 20th October a letter was sent to Mr. Alexander accepting that figure. On 8th January 1976, when the Lord Privy Seal inspected the site, Mr. Alexander indicated that the requirement was now 40 acres and on 19th January, the director of technical services in Newport, offered the Property Services Agency 40 acres. The agency then mentioned that 45 acres was a possibility. That is the sort of "fiddle" which has been going on through different Departments. I do not blame Mr. Alexander of the Property Services Agency, but it is scandalous that a civil servant should be used in this way to satisfy the aspirations of his superiors.
The second red herring drawn across the trail concerns a letter from the Minister of State and dated 11th February this year. In it he said:
at a late stage Ministers were made aware of the fact that the land earmarked for our use at Tredegar Park had originally been acquired by compulsory purchase for housing purposes and that the change of use from housing to office development would involve a public announcement with the possibility of a public enquiry which could delay our programme by as much as 15 months. It was recognised that there is no statutory obligation on a local authority to offer land back to its original owner in these circumstances but the possibility that representations to this effect might be made was another factor Ministers were obliged to take into account.
Two points arise from that. The Minister said that he did not know until a late stage about the compulsory purchase order. Mr. Long, the chief executive of Newport, with 40 years in local government, said that he was amazed by that. Over a year ago the Government were notified by a joint submission from the county council and

the borough. Mr. Gordon Probert, the planning officer of the Gwent council, notified Mr. Ripley of the Ministry of Defence, and Mr. Bevan, of the Welsh Office, of these facts early in 1975. The Whiteheads Consultancy was also notified in January last year.
Mr. Alexander wrote to the chief executive of Newport on 22nd October last year saying how relieved he was that the land was included in the recently-confirmed compulsory purchase order. There does not seem to be much doubt about that evidence.
The second point concerns the change from housing to the establishment for the Ministry of Defence. Again, it was agreed that that could be the subject of planning consultation under the Department of the Environment Circular 80/71, but the district council and the county council agreed that there should be no difficulty or delay about that. In any case, much of the old thinking on the subject is made out of date by the Community Land Act. The previous owner could object only on planning grounds, that is, on the ground that the site was not suitable for the development. Such an objection, apparently, would have no substance in relation to that project.
Mr. Long also says that planning consultation would be equally necessary in respect of the St. Mellons site. He adds that he is not a little suspicious about the whole business, and he points to the Cardiff situation. In 1971 the Welsh Office confirmed the Pentwyn housing development. Two years later it gave permission for a large part of the area to be used for industrial development. It seems that prejudice is again being shown in favour of Cardiff.
I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 11th October saying that on this and other matters the Welsh Office was highly prejudiced in favour of Cardiff. He replied on 3rd November that there was no question of that. But the Welsh Office has failed to understand the problems of Newport—the fact that the town is sandwiched between the capital city and the new town of Cwmbran and that it is encircled by a development area. It has a huge redevelopment problem. There have been two major factory closures there.
Certain pressures are being put on the Welsh Office at top level. We saw it over the whole issue of the mini-mill. We have seen it over development area status. Perhaps the same pressures were exerted over the Common Market and are now being exerted over the Ministry of Defence dispersal.
I had a distinguished predecessor in Sir Frank Soskice—Attorney-General, Home Secretary and Lord Privy Seal. He was a most diligent and conscientious constituency Member, but no one could ever accuse him of currying favour for Newport. Likewise, in Gwent at present we have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He has had to suffer the humiliation and the brickbats because of the reduction in steel-making in Ebbw Vale.
I cannot understand why all this pressure is being imposed on behalf of Cardiff and why it is not resisted. The staff say that in view of the Minister's announcement the whole issue of dispersal is in the melting pot. There is no justifiable reason, they say, for turning down Tredegar Park. In the language of the people that is understood by those whom I represent, this is nothing less than a big "fiddle". The sooner it is recognised and we get back to straight dealing in our affairs, the sooner shall we succeed in combating the present cynicism about politicians and politics generally.

10.21 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) has properly raised a matter relevant to his own constituency. But I am grateful to him in so far as this enables me to put on record a number of points concerning Ministry of Defence dispersal as a whole and to answer questions about our decisions in relation to South Wales.
I know my hon. Friend will understand that, as he has taken 25 minutes to make his case and has left me with 10 minutes, my reply may not be as adequate as otherwise it would have been.
In the course of his statement in the House on 30th July 1974 on Government plans for the dispersal of Civil Service jobs from London, the Lord President announced that the Ministry of Defence

would make much the largest contribution. The precise numbers, he said, might be affected by the result of the defence review and must, therefore, be regarded as estimates for the time being. However, the approximate number of posts to be dispersed was to be 11,000, of which 5,000 would go to Cardiff and 6,000 to Glasgow. I must draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that Cardiff was specifically named in the statement of 30th July 1974, although in practice the net was to be cast wider.
A preliminary report had already been prepared some three months earlier in which alternative sites in the Cardiff area, including St. Mellons, had been explored. Later in 1974 our interest in St. Mellons was confirmed. However, the wish of local authorities outside Cardiff to be considered soon became clear and in December Gwent County Council, acting for Newport Borough Council, introduced Tredegar Park for the first time.
There is no need for me to give details, even were there time, of the studies and discussions that occupied the first half of 1975. They involved the consultants appointed to investigate possible sites, the Welsh Office, the Property Services Agency and ourselves. By July, however, it was apparent that the effective choice lay between St. Mellons and Tredegar Park. On management grounds, the Procurement Executive—the part of the Ministry of Defence most affected by the projected moved—preferred St. Mellons, which was also the choice of the Welsh Office. As for the Property Services Agency, it believed that St. Mellons offered the best prospect of providing an attractive working environment in the long term.
On that basis Ministers might have been justified in making an immediate decision in favour of St. Mellons. There was a strong case for doing so in order that dispersal should not be further delayed. The intention was that Ministry of Defence dispersal to South Wales should be in the period 1980–82. It would be difficult enough to keep to this timetable and impossible if the choice of sites was not resolved soon. I can tell my hon. Friend that Ministry of Defence Ministers were under severe pressure from their colleagues to get a move on. If we had said "snap" to St. Mellons last July, we would have been popular with


our right hon. Friends. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend said, we would have been unpopular with the Staff Side of the Ministry of Defence, and this gave us pause.
As my hon. Friend is aware, dispersal as a whole is not welcomed by civil servants. They see disruption, inconvenience and loss of efficiency. They do not want to transfer their careers to far-away places. It is easy to understand this feeling, particularly given the prospect, which will soon become an uncomfortable reality, of substantial cuts in overall Civil Service numbers. As for the Ministry of Defence, reductions in the early 1970s coupled with the results of the defence review were already causing anxiety by last summer.
Despite this painful reality, dispersal was accepted by the Staff Side as a firm decision of the Government. Its quarrel was about dispersal to Scotland—it more readily acquiesced in the South Wales decision—and its interest, very properly, was in the choice of sites. And when the time came it opted firmly for Tredegar Park, substantially for the reasons given by my hon. Friend.
There was thus a conflict of view—management preferred St. Mellons and the Staff Side preferred Tredegar Park. It was principally my task within the Ministry of Defence to discover whether this conflict could be resolved, prior to a collective Government decision. I discussed in detail with the Staff Side the basis for its choice.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, who is here tonight, visited the sites quite openly—I stress that point in view of what my hon. Friend has just said—and investigated them fully. I invited representatives of South Glamorgan County Council and Cardiff City Council to see me because it appeared that they might have been clumsy in presenting their case. The Staff Side visited Cardiff and Newport again at my request in order to reconsider its preference. I wrote to the Staff Side rebutting some of its arguments. In other words, I hoped to persuade it to change its mind and to endorse St. Mellons. My hon. Friend may regret this attempt on my part, but my task was

to seek to find an agreed solution. It is natural that, initially, I should seek to bring the Staff Side over to management's point of view.
However, it follows that when the Staff Side remained adamant in preferring Tredegar Park I was obliged to consider whether management's preference for St. Mellons need be maintained. It had in fact become plain that the margin of advantage between the two sites was narrow.
I have given this full account of last year's discussions, which were very time-absorbing, in order to explain frankly and openly the process of consultation and the ebb and flow of argument. The choice of St. Mellons or Tredegar Park was put to the Staff Side in good faith. Equally, the Ministry of Defence came round to accepting Tredegar Park, despite its continuing management preference for St. Mellons, out of a genuine wish to meet the Staff Side preference, given that the penalty in other respects was not too high.
I very much regret, however, that at this late stage a new and unforeseen factor arose that was to prove decisive. My hon. Friend did not mention this in his speech, but Ministers learnt that because the Tredegar Park site had been originally acquired under a compulsory purchase order for housing purposes—I stress for housing purposes—the proposed change of use from housing to office development would involve a public announcement with the possibility of a public inquiry, which could delay the programme by as much as 15 months. By contrast, the whole of the proposed St. Mellons site was free from any compulsory purchase order restraint. It was privately owned and the owners were willing to sell. This clearly redressed the balance once again, this time more firmly towards St. Mellons than ever before.
I think that the decision then became inevitable. To put it at its least, a new and awkward element of uncertainty about Tredegar Park had been introduced. The prospect was of a substantial delay in dispersal to South Wales, which would have been received very unfavourably and which could have affected the timetable for Ministry of Defence dispersal as a whole. I put it to my hon. Friend that it is in the interest of all the


people of South Wales, including his constituents, that these new office jobs are now made available just as soon as possible. I would also put it to my hon. Friend that as the St. Mellons site is only four or five miles west of Tredegar Park, many of his own constituents will still be able to work there if they choose.
In the end, the prospect of delay in resolving the difficulties would have ruled out Tredegar Park. I hope that all those

concerned will now accept the decision and work together to ensure that Ministry of Defence dispersal to South Wales is a success.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.